The housing crisis and ways to fix it?

[Yew]

"not relaxing planning laws to make it easier to develop in an AONB" then I suppose I am a conservative!

Mods note - split from here.

I generally find that AONB's (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) are usually a synonym for "Areas where posh people don't want things like housing for us plebs to be built"

 

[GusB]

I generally find that AONB's are usually a synonym for "Areas where posh people don't want things like housing for us plebs to be built"

Are you suggesting that only posh people appreciate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty?

 

[Yew]

Are you suggesting that only posh people appreciate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

They're usually the ones that live in them and object to planning applications. The Cotswolds are nice enough, but I wouldn't say they're substantially different from other bits of the country to be classified as "outstandingly beautiful". Particularly with those in the south of England, they seem to be more aimed at preventing the building of houses, than preserving anything particularly special or unique.

Coming from a town that D.H. Lawrence described as "that once romantic now utterly disheartening colliery town", I feel its time that these areas started to pull their weight in modern Britain, rather than trying to live in some middle class, alternative reality.

 

[nw1]

Mods note - split from here.

I generally find that AONB's (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) are usually a synonym for "Areas where posh people don't want things like housing for us plebs to be built"

I completely disagree.

AONBs are areas with particularly attractive countryside which needs to be preserved; I grew up in one, spending my late childhood and teenage years in such a location.

Walking has been an important part of my life and enjoying the countryside around the place I grew up gave me much happiness in my late-childhood and teenage years.

There are plenty of non-AONB areas where development can take place if absolutely necessary, but I would always focus on development in not-especially-environmentally-important areas adjacent to existing large towns rather than right in the middle of the countryside.


To me, the decision to relax AONB planning laws is actually a Thatcherite, Tory one: put corporate profit above all else and to hell with aesthetics. It just seems to me to be what that philistine Liz Truss is all about.


The UK would be a truly dismal place if there was little countryside left to enjoy, or you had to travel to Wales, the Pennines or the Lake District to see it. And the Tories have already made it more difficult and bureaucratic to emigrate, so if swathes of valuable UK countryside are concreted over, we're stuffed either way.

 

[DerekC]

Are you suggesting that only posh people appreciate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty?

They're usually the ones that live in them and object to planning applications. The Cotswolds are nice enough, but I wouldn't say they're substantially different from other bits of the country to be classified as "outstandingly beautiful". Particularly with those in the south of England, they seem to be more aimed at preventing the building of houses, than preserving anything particularly special or unique.

Coming from a town that D.H. Lawrence described as "that once romantic now utterly disheartening colliery town", I feel its time that these areas started to pull their weight in modern Britain, rather than trying to live in some middle class, alternative reality.

Although AONBs do seem to be disproportionately in the south, the opposite is true of National Parks, which have restrictive rules on planning as well. And the north has far more access land than the south. My parish in rural Hampshire has only three pieces of access land, two of which are nature reserves open to the public anyway. The other (only about ten acres) is legally accessible to the public, but there are no public rights of way to get to it and the landowner has surrounded it with barbed wire!

Anyway don't worry because Liz will sweep away all these restrictions and let the developers rule (no doubt a suitable proportion of the profits will find its way to the Conservative party).

 

[Yew]

Walking has been an important part of my life and enjoying the countryside around the place I grew up gave me much happiness in my late-childhood and teenage years.

Would a few houses on the edge of that village completely ruin the entire countryside?

There are plenty of non-AONB areas where development can take place if absolutely necessary, but I would always focus on development in not-especially-environmentally-important areas adjacent to existing large towns rather than right in the middle of the countryside.

Have a look at a map, how many of these AONB's are in the London commuter belt

To me, the decision to relax AONB planning laws is actually a Thatcherite, Tory one: put corporate profit above all else and to hell with aesthetics. It just seems to me to be what that philistine Liz Truss is all about.

I'm sure that those struggling to get by with inflated house prices and/or long commutes take great comfort in that.

The UK would be a truly dismal place if there was little countryside left to enjoy, or you had to travel to Wales, the Pennines or the Lake District to see it.

You make it sound like we're talking of concreting over every single AONB, not just adding a few houses to them. The Trent valley below Nottingham isn't an AONB, and its hardly a bustling metropolis. The idea of there being "little countryside left to enjoy" is a straw man argument.

And the Tories have already made it more difficult and bureaucratic to emigrate, so if swathes of valuable UK countryside are concreted over, we're stuffed either way.

Again, we're not talking about "concreting over vast swathes of countryside, just treating these areas like we treat the rest of the countryside.

 

[nw1]

Would a few houses on the edge of that village completely ruin the entire countryside?

How many, per year? Would "a few houses" every year lead to doubling the size of the village in ten?

Have a look at a map, how many of these AONB's are in the London commuter belt

I'm sure that those struggling to get by with inflated house prices and/or long commutes take great comfort in that.

The problem is the inflated house prices. This needs to be dealt with. Telling greedy Russian oligarchs, and other people who buy up vast swathes of property without the slightest aim of living in it (or renting it at affordable prices), to get the hell out of London would be a start.

We shouldn't be looking at "build, build, build" as the solution to everything. Regulate the market instead and stop people driving up the prices. "Build, build, build" is just a Thatcherite approach "don't interfere with the market, inflate the profits of development companies" which is just so typical of Truss.

 

[Yew]

How many, per year? Would "a few houses" every year lead to doubling the size of the village in ten?

What would the downside of that be?

"Build, build, build" is just a Thatcherite approach "don't interfere with the market, inflate the profits of development companies" which is just so typical of Truss.

Is this the same Thathcher that famously stopped councils from building new council houses, and to who we have to thank for the sustained drop in housebuilding that we've seen for the last 40 years?

 

[nw1]

Although AONBs do seem to be disproportionately in the south, the opposite is true of National Parks, which have restrictive rules on planning as well. And the north has far more access land than the south. My parish in rural Hampshire has only three pieces of access land, two of which are nature reserves open to the public anyway. The other (only about ten acres) is legally accessible to the public, but there are no public rights of way to get to it and the landowner has surrounded it with barbed wire!

Also, the fact that the south is near London and is already pretty developed means we need to robustly protect what countryside we still do have.

Anyway don't worry because Liz will sweep away all these restrictions and let the developers rule (no doubt a suitable proportion of the profits will find its way to the Conservative party).

Quite. While I cannot prove this, I personally believe this is all about enabling Truss' friends to line their own pockets.

What would the downside of that be?

Erm, less countryside to enjoy?

 

[Snow1964]

Silly schemes like building in National parks and AONBs is just going to delay planning, encourage delaying and negative tactics, and not a way to solve a crisis.

There is plenty of brownfield land nationally (although it is scarce in some local areas).

But basically we have evolved a system (presumably by lobbying) that benefits big builders who build boxy houses on edges of towns. We no longer encourage build your own home, have never really adopted co-ownership (groups that all muck in to build a group of self build houses). There are odd schemes like Graven Hill, Bicester (as featured in Grand designs), but these are very rare.

The solution is two fold, make it much easier to build own home (basically selling individual plots as at Graven Hill). It is getting a plot that stops homes being built, not the build process. The second part is accept that some will rent, so need to stop the council house sell off (no one will build any if obliged to sell it off at a discount before covered build cost).

To be honest I would like to build a home for retirement, energy efficient, near facilities (not where you need a car), and it would release my current home. But we have a system where plots aren’t made available, so won’t happen. Yes I know Councils are legally required to keep a list of plots (but no obligation to have a 5 year supply like there is for sites for the big builders) If you discourage 50-70 year olds from freeing up family homes, never going to have enough of them.

 

[nw1]

To be honest I would like to build a home for retirement, energy efficient, near facilities (not where you need a car), and it would release my current home. But we have a system where plots aren’t made available, so won’t happen. Yes I know Councils are legally required to keep a list of plots (but no obligation to have a 5 year supply like there is for sites for the big builders) If you discourage 50-70 year olds from freeing up family homes, never going to have enough of them.

50... bit young to be pensioned off!

Also many people of 50 likely still have under-18 kids at home. Most people I know with children had them in their 30s. From my understanding and observations (never had children myself) it's been the trend amongst GenX (i.e the generation currently around 50, FWIW I am a member of this generation) to have kids late and quite frankly who can blame them. Arguably it's better to enjoy your 20s than be tied down with children too early in life - and even better, adopt a philosophy of not having children at all unless you really want them. That way we cut the amount of housing needed, driving the rate of price increase down and protecting green space.

 

[Yew]

There is plenty of brownfield land nationally (although it is scarce in some local areas).

Unfortunately a lot of this is situated in bad areas, or near significant roads or industrial facilities. Perhaps you are looking at downsizing, but I imagine that sandwiched between an industrial estate and a main road isn't what you had in mind?

Also, the fact that the south is near London and is already pretty developed means we need to robustly protect what countryside we still do have.

Personally I rate the ability of working class people in London to have a reasonable commute, and opportunity to afford a home as more important.

Quite. While I cannot prove this, I personally believe this is all about enabling Truss' friends to line their own pockets.

I'm not going to disagree with that one?

Erm, less countryside to enjoy?

You do realise that England is 90% countryside, and it's not like we're talking about building brutalist tower blocks in these areas, just more homes for people to live in.

 

[nw1]

You do realise that England is 90% countryside, and it's not like we're talking about building brutalist tower blocks in these areas, just more homes for people to live in.

Maybe, but is a home in an AONB going to be affordable? Or is it going to attract a silly price because of its location?

What's the point of building homes going for a £500,000 asking price? Why not build more affordable homes in more "ordinary" locations, which will attract more affordable prices?

Personally I rate the ability of working class people in London to have a reasonable commute, and opportunity to afford a home as more important.

That's a fair point but I say again, to me it's the nature of the housing market that's the problem, and prices increasing too fast. From my understanding the problem is driven by wealthy landlords buying up the stock in London and renting it at inflated prices (or in some cases not even renting at all, but holding on to it, selling it, and making a silly profit), meaning it's difficult to find anything affordable within London, pushing people out of town. Really this should not be happening.

 

[E27007]

There is not a chance of solving the housing crisis, nor poverty and deprivation, or inequality of opportunity or social mobility, with our political setup. All those evils could be tackled at a stroke of a pen, it actually suits the purposes of our political elite to maintain, even propogate want and need in our society, it will never change.

 

[GS250]

Well it would help if we actually utilised existing houses somewhat better. How many potential homes lay empty for all or most of the year?

It all goes back to the same argument about how much control we let the authorities have. Do we continue with a consumer risk/reward led housing market that has been the bedrock of UK culture during the last 40 years. Or does the govt take control, boot out the 2nd home owners, force buy the hoards of empty properties and pretty much decide who gets to live where. Or is there a healthy compromise?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well it would help if we actually utilised existing houses somewhat better. How many potential homes lay empty for all or most of the year?

It all goes back to the same argument about how much control we let the authorities have. Do we continue with a consumer risk/reward led housing market that has been the bedrock of UK culture during the last 40 years. Or does the govt take control, boot out the 2nd home owners, force buy the hoards of empty properties and pretty much decide who gets to live where. Or is there a healthy compromise?

Yep. Build more houses, so supply exceeds demand.

 

[najaB]

We shouldn't be looking at "build, build, build" as the solution to everything.

Only about 6% of the UK is currently built on. We've some way to go before everything is concreted over.

Link: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/land-cover-atlas-uk-1.744440

 

[nw1]

Only about 6% of the UK is currently built on. We've some way to go before everything is concreted over.

Link: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/land-cover-atlas-uk-1.744440

However I am questioning whether it is the right approach. Should we not be focusing on the inflated cost of property and rentals, and dealing with that by intervening to slow down the ever-increasing prices? I recognise that it would be breaking the rules of free-market economics, but maybe we need to do that in this case.

I don't actually know whether there is a shortage of physical property, or merely a shortage of affordable (either to rent or to buy) property. If it's the latter, and there is plenty of physical property available (but it's unaffordable) doing something about that should be the top priority.

 

[GS250]

Yep. Build more houses, so supply exceeds demand.

Lovely idea that man. Who pays out of interest?

Only about 6% of the UK is currently built on. We've some way to go before everything is concreted over.

Link: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/land-cover-atlas-uk-1.744440

True...but at what point do we risk the ecosystem by building further?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lovely idea that man. Who pays out of interest?

Umm, the people buying them!

 

[py_megapixel]

Most current housing developments seem to be sprawling estates of "Barratt Boxes" with large gardens and driveways. This is horribly space-inefficient and the houses themselves are rubbish as well. We would have as much of a shortage if we'd built more efficiently. Local councils need to start turning down planning applications for poor quality developments and actively planning high quality ones - by which I don't mean luxury - far from it - nor necessarily high-rise. There is definitely room for a sweet spot, making much better use of space than modern new-builds (and affording a higher quality of life for the occupants) without cramming people in.

Unfortunately, councils are somewhat toothless as long as ministers remain happy to override local planning decisions with a snap of their fingers (in accordance with the government's infuriating ideological opposition to control of anything being on a local scale) - and the big housebuilders know this.

 

[GS250]

Umm, the people buying them!

At current prices?

 

[Bletchleyite]

At current prices?

Yes, people are still buying houses at current prices. Build more, though, and you saturate the market and prices come down. That's how a market works.

 

[GS250]

Yes, people are still buying houses at current prices. Build more, though, and you saturate the market and prices come down. That's how a market works.

I'd love for that to happen. How many new homes do we need though to bring the price down? Builders still want to make a hefty profit on them too.

And what about the infrastructure required to support these new houses?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd love for that to happen. How many new homes do we need though to bring the price down? Builders still want to make a hefty profit on them too.

Lots. We need to be in a position where there are more homes than demand in popular areas. And the right size of homes, too, not just big ones.

Encouraging housing associations to build for private rent at commercial prices would also bring rents down.

Crikey, how about another Milton Keynes, but for public transport instead of the car?

And what about the infrastructure required to support these new houses?

Planning gain.

 

[Broucek]

There's a lot of BS about protecting certain categories of land. I live just inside the "green belt" around London and any time someone mentions building on that sacred area local people and local media have a fit. But not all green belt land is equally precious. For example, there are golf courses and farms that could readily be partly built on without ruining the neighbourhood.

I also don't understand the worry about house prices going down. Unless you're selling for cash or doing a BIG downsize, it really doesn't matter that much!

Ironically, well-off older people with nice houses may smugly think this won't affect them (actually "us" as I have a reasonably nice suburban semi). But it will, because they/we will eventually become dependent on nurses and carers and the way things are going, those people will not be able to afford to live anywhere near London...

 

[E27007]

Yes, people are still buying houses at current prices. Build more, though, and you saturate the market and prices come down. That's how a market works.

Home ownership as a % of the population is falling and has been declining for a good 20 years, house prices have outstripped incomes by 250% , paying rent to a private or public landlord is a way of life for many, a good number of those renters would have been house buyers 40 years ago, the generation gap is expanding,

 

[najaB]

True...but at what point do we risk the ecosystem by building further?

That's what planning is all about, but I'd definitely say that there's plenty of scope for building new housing, much of which could be built on existing brownfield sites, not requiring new land take.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's what planning is all about, but I'd definitely say that there's plenty of scope for building new housing, much of which could be built on existing brownfield sites, not requiring new land take.

It is also about what we build. Most developments these days are 1/2 bed flats and 3/4 bed houses. More 2 bed and small 3 bed houses are needed. People just don't want flats for bringing up kids. In essence we need modern day Victorian terraces, which are built in places but nowhere near enough of them.

 

[ABB125]

Would a few houses on the edge of that village completely ruin the entire countryside?

Well, if "that village" is made up of attractive old Cotswold stone properties, a developer sticking a load of identikit red brick abominations on the edge isn't exactly an improvement...

How many, per year? Would "a few houses" every year lead to doubling the size of the village in ten?

Precisely

What would the downside of that be?

Well, for a start the developers will have managed to escape from any planning obligations to provide things like improved infrastructure, community facilities etc in order to cope with the addition residents...

Is this the same Thathcher that famously stopped councils from building new council houses, and to who we have to thank for the sustained drop in housebuilding that we've seen for the last 40 years?

Although I don't necessarily agree with the political motivations, the right to buy is one of the best things to come out of the Thatcher government. However, not letting councils build more houses was literally the most stupid decision (but aligned with the political values of the government).


Anyway, we won't be able to fix the housing crisis until the system is no longer rigged in favour of the large housebuilders who can build poor-quality, unattractive identikit rubbish with impunity, as local councils are effectively powerless to stop them due to mandatory government targets.

The other aspect is costs. It's often said that the price of a house is split roughly equally between land, building costs and profit. However, the average cost of top-quality arable land is about £10,000 per acre (according to Farmers' Weekly). You can build many houses on an acre of land. Therefore, there is some blatant profiteering going on by landowners. Now I accept that Farmer Giles would like to benefit a bit from selling his land for housing, but even at triple that price the land cost is relatively tiny compared to the house price.
If the prevailing market price for 4 bedroom houses in an area is £500,000, should we be surprised that new builds are sold for this much, or that land is being sold with this cost in mind (ie: "I'll sell you the land for £300,000 per acre, because although it's far in excess of its real value you can easily afford it if you're selling houses for that much")? If someone (for example, Farmer Giles starts building his own houses) starts selling 4 bedroom houses for £300,000 in the same area, then eventually the market price will be forced down. So that's one option.
It's kind of like the cost of infrastructure on a national level (roads, railways etc). If the government loudly trumpets that £x is being spent on scheme Y, the price from the bidders for the contract will be Y even if their cost is half that, because they know they can get away with it. And once you're in this position you can never go back because they'll just say "but this is how much it's cost in the past, so it'll cost you this much now".

Near where I live, a large area of land is just starting to have houses built on it. The land was bought by a developer something like 40 years ago (my dad remembers it as a child); since then, it's been sold on several times, each developer making a profit, until finally the market price has been deemed high enough the make enough profit. Local authorities need the power to stop this from happening, but never will due to the lobbying power of the big housebuilders.

And don't get me started on the destruction of the strategic road network by development and "growth at all costs"...