UK housing supply - the problem & solutions

[Bletchleyite]

I've worked on several projects where they build terraced housing, it tends to only be done in shorter runs as the gardens need rear access which makes the gardens it passes behind smaller.

I suppose you could ask - why do gardens need rear access? Many houses don't have it.

But it is probably true that shorter runs reduce antisocial behaviour in "back alleys"/"ginnels"/"entries"[1] that provide that access.

[1] There are almost more words for those than there are for "barmcake".

 

[Bletchleyite]

There certainly needs to be better outside space provision, developments should focus those with limited outside space (such as flats) around those areas where there is outside space. Especially parks. Also more provision for allotments should be made.

It did occur to me last night that British blocks of flats tend to be built around ugly car parks. Why not greenery and the parking underground?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately, my tiny quadruple glazed window opens all of 5 inches and does nothing to let cool air in. The only thing is effectively lets in is bugs.

I'll take air-con any day over that, considering getting a portable unit because summers are so unbearable. My flat remained at a solid 35-37C last summer, not repeating that again!

That's called "poor design". Houses and flats should have large enough opening windows - the ideal would be a full height lean-and-turn fitting onto a large balcony.

 

[DerekC]

One thing that seems to have been forgotten about is the Cameron government's shameful and cynical redefinition of "affordable" as "80% of market value" or "80% of market rent" instead of "affordable based on a proportion (usually 50%) of average local income". That was done so that they could announce a big increase in affordable homes (which didn't happen) and pleasing potential young conservative voters by helping them onto the housing ladder (which presumably did, at least to some extent).

 

[GusB]

I've lived in a back to back property (what you described as a four-in-a-block) and whilst they are more efficient than traditional houses the one we were in was a one bedroom and so a lot of space was taken up with stairs. Whilst one of our neighbors had no outside space other than a 1m strip between the house and the road.

The internal layout was also poor, due to an internal dividing wall, so wasn't as efficient as it could have been. Meaning that t the house felt small when it didn't need to.

Or next property we lived in was a flat and although the floor space was only 50% more it felt a lot bigger. The main reason for not staying there longer was the lack of personal outside space. As although there was a patio it was into a shared garden. If there had been more a formal division to show that was personal space we may have used it more (as it was never clear as to if we could or not, especially as the two upstair flats of the block of four had no balconies).

There certainly needs to be better outside space provision, developments should focus those with limited outside space (such as flats) around those areas where there is outside space. Especially parks. Also more provision for allotments should be made.

That's not quite what I meant by four-in-a-block. Essentially you have a building that has the same footprint as two semi-detached houses, but each half is split into two flats. The ones I've seen usually have an open staircase outside the building so there's no reduction in space inside, but there's no reason why they can't be enclosed.

 

[PeterC]

I suppose you could ask - why do gardens need rear access? Many houses don't have it.

But it is probably true that shorter runs reduce antisocial behaviour in "back alleys"/"ginnels"/"entries"[1] that provide that access.

[1] There are almost more words for those than there are for "barmcake".

If you had spent the summer carrying the lawnmower through the house every time the front lawn needed mowing you would probably think that separate access to the garden was a plus.

 

[The Ham]

I suppose you could ask - why do gardens need rear access? Many houses don't have it.

But it is probably true that shorter runs reduce antisocial behaviour in "back alleys"/"ginnels"/"entries"[1] that provide that access.

[1] There are almost more words for those than there are for "barmcake".

It's required as councils don't allow bins to be stored in the highway and with the advent of the wheelie bin (especially with multi bin systems) there's not been the apatite to build bin stores into the house.

As such any home with no front garden would need the bins to be stored around the back.

 

[SteveP29]

While there's already a fair bit out there, we could start by moving all Government offices to the regions - and not Manchester

IIRC 'The Ministry' at Longbenton and the Child Benefit Centre at Washington used to be the biggest Government departments not in London

So you seriously don’t think that rising population has contributed to rising demand for housing?

Not as much as you seem to think it has

We really shouldn't be in a position where we are quibbling about inefficient use of bedrooms.

Correct, taking £20 a week or so out of a Housing Benefit claim is really going to save the country billions, as opposed to, say, taxing corporations and individuals more fairly

 

[Dai Corner]

Correct, taking £20 a week or so out of a Housing Benefit claim is really going to save the country billions, as opposed to, say, taxing corporations and individuals more fairly

I thought it was more about making better use of the housing stock by encouraging people in properties bigger than they needed to downsize? I don't think HB should reduced if the tenant has made honest efforts to find a smaller place but found there weren't any available.

 

[Meerkat]

Conversely, they are more likely to take up available posts in places other than London - if there were any.

London has by far the most jobs within public transport range, and the biggest communities for migrants.

It did occur to me last night that British blocks of flats tend to be built around ugly car parks. Why not greenery and the parking underground?

underground parking takes a storey out. Planning don’t want the building too high, and don’t want too much mass - cheap answer is to have spaces between blocks full of cars. Going fully underground creates flooding issues, loses space to ramps, and you need large ventilation gaps or fire regs start demanding expensive forced ventilation etc.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There are still , a considerable number of "above shops" or potential conversions of disused space above other premises , which might not be ideal for young families , would make ideal "starter" or "intermediate" homes and wold get some life back into central areas.

I live in one of the most expensive areas in the UK (St Albans) , and I can think of at least 40 instances where properties could be re-used. Developers however insist on either more green belt development for the 4x4 owners with double garages , 4 bedrooms at least etc - or in one case , an effort to recreate "Shoreditch" living for near a £1 million ...yes ...that figure is right.

Some intensification is clearly needed - where it makes sense. Discussed before in the context of some "not ageing well" 1920's and 1930 suburbs. Tricky though to amalgamate land ownership plots though.

 

[underbank]

There are still , a considerable number of "above shops" or potential conversions of disused space above other premises , which might not be ideal for young families , would make ideal "starter" or "intermediate" homes and wold get some life back into central areas.

Often difficult to get change of use planning permission as they're usually designated as retail, even if only used for storage/offices. Of course, many were originally living accommodation but that's ignored by the councils. There's often also accessibility issues, i.e. only internal staircases from the shop, which would mean a lot of lost retail space to build in a separate entrance plus costs of separating services such as power, water, etc.

One of my clients has such a shop - he's tried numerous times to get change of use PP for the two floors above it which he's never used. But "council says no" as it's on a designated retail parade in their local plan. Presumably they're scared of the ground floor shop itself also being converted into residential at a future date.

 

[The Ham]

One of my clients has such a shop - he's tried numerous times to get change of use PP for the two floors above it which he's never used. But "council says no" as it's on a designated retail parade in their local plan. Presumably they're scared of the ground floor shop itself also being converted into residential at a future date

That's just down to poor policy on the part of the council. One local to me has a policy of all properties within a certain area had to have active uses (i.e. retail, walk in offices, food, etc.).

 

[najaB]

London has by far the most jobs within public transport range, and the biggest communities for migrants.

Which is why I said "if there were any".

 

[DerekC]

Often difficult to get change of use planning permission as they're usually designated as retail, even if only used for storage/offices. Of course, many were originally living accommodation but that's ignored by the councils. There's often also accessibility issues, i.e. only internal staircases from the shop, which would mean a lot of lost retail space to build in a separate entrance plus costs of separating services such as power, water, etc.

One of my clients has such a shop - he's tried numerous times to get change of use PP for the two floors above it which he's never used. But "council says no" as it's on a designated retail parade in their local plan. Presumably they're scared of the ground floor shop itself also being converted into residential at a future date.

Under current legislation a shop can be converted to residential use under General Permitted Development without planning consent provided the conversion is less than 150 sqm. However the planning authority does have to give "Prior Approval" which can be refused if in their view it is undesirable for the building to change to a residential use because:

(a) of the impact on the provision of retail/financial services in the area (but only if there is a reasonable prospect of the building being used to provide such services) or

(b) the building is located in a key shopping area.

Conversion of space above the shop into up to two flats is also allowed, as I understand it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problems with conversions of shops to residential are:
1. That it is unlikely ever to be converted back, which damages the viability of a town centre;
2. That it's usually done in a really ugly manner just by bricking up the shop front with a door and window added (you can see loads of this in former parades of shops along roads into our big cities).

I can't however see any issue with converting the bit above shops, though, and can see plenty of benefits to having people living in town centres in such accommodation. These days, with Just In Time stock control being the norm rather than each store having large stockrooms as they used to, they're usually pretty much unused.

 

[Jozhua]

Yeah, I'd love to live above a shop if that was an option available!

Would I be right in assuming it might reduce the rental/purchase costs for shop-owners too, not having to pay for the unused space?

And yeah, Just-In-Time deliveries, etc will totally mean that a big stockroom is less important than ever.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah, I'd love to live above a shop if that was an option available!

It often is, to be fair - try searching Rightmove for flats in city centres and in local shopping areas. Not as much as it could be, though.

 

[SteveP29]

I thought it was more about making better use of the housing stock by encouraging people in properties bigger than they needed to downsize? I don't think HB should reduced if the tenant has made honest efforts to find a smaller place but found there weren't any available.

It may have been the intention, but as you note, there is a lack of smaller properties for singles or couples with one of two bedrooms.
Developers will build on a plot of land the size of house that realises the biggest profits and unfortunately, that's usually always 3 and 4 bedroom houses

 

[Bletchleyite]

It may have been the intention, but as you note, there is a lack of smaller properties for singles or couples with one of two bedrooms.
Developers will build on a plot of land the size of house that realises the biggest profits and unfortunately, that's usually always 3 and 4 bedroom houses

Though a block of flats must come close. I guess however this is more expensive to build due to tighter regs, and then there's the faff about setting up the freeholder etc.

 

[Dai Corner]

Though a block of flats must come close. I guess however this is more expensive to build due to tighter regs, and then there's the faff about setting up the freeholder etc.

Thinking of the area I live in, the developments since the turn of the century have been a mixture of flats, terraced and detached houses (few if any semi-detached) ranging from one to five bedrooms.

If anything the proportion of flats has increased. I don't know what sort of tenure the flats have, but a friend lives in one block which belongs to a Housing Association.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If anything the proportion of flats has increased. I don't know what sort of tenure the flats have, but a friend lives in one block which belongs to a Housing Association.

I'd imagine a mix of leasehold and social rented, with possibly some shared ownership leasehold in the mix. Commonhold (similar to the usual Scottish tenement ownership) would be better but isn't widespread.

 

[underbank]

Most new developments have planning requirements for a certain percentage of smaller properties. In the field near us, it's mostly 3/4 bed detached houses, but there are also some 1/2 bed flats/terraces too - referred to as "affordable homes" in the planning documents.

But 3/4 bed new builds are only popular because of "bed blocking" by singles/couples continuing to live in 3/4 bed properties long after their kids have left home. We need to find ways to encourage such people to move. There is a point where they become too old/can't be bothered to do the physicality of moving, i.e. sorting through decades of clutter, sorting out the loft, not to mention the emotional aspects of getting rid of decades of memories etc. It's not always financial, although the costs of moving, stamp duty, legal fees, estate agents, removal men, etc is very high. We really need to explore why older people don't want to downsize and do whatever is feasible to support them. Get them to downsize, free up existing 3/4 bed housing stock, and then there'll be less demand for 3/4 bed new builds, meaning more demand for smaller properties, which in turn will force developers to build smaller properties. Taxation can be part of that, but like I say, we also need to find ways of helping with practicalities etc.

 

[underbank]

As for developers wanting to build 3/4 bed for higher profits, why are student properties so popular? They're basically high rise flats, springing up in every university town. They must be profitable for developers, so why aren't similar being built for residential? They have the same regulations due to multiple occupancy, fire precautions, security, etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But 3/4 bed new builds are only popular because of "bed blocking" by singles/couples continuing to live in 3/4 bed properties long after their kids have left home. We need to find ways to encourage such people to move. There is a point where they become too old/can't be bothered to do the physicality of moving, i.e. sorting through decades of clutter, sorting out the loft, not to mention the emotional aspects of getting rid of decades of memories etc. It's not always financial, although the costs of moving, stamp duty, legal fees, estate agents, removal men, etc is very high. We really need to explore why older people don't want to downsize and do whatever is feasible to support them. Get them to downsize, free up existing 3/4 bed housing stock, and then there'll be less demand for 3/4 bed new builds, meaning more demand for smaller properties, which in turn will force developers to build smaller properties. Taxation can be part of that, but like I say, we also need to find ways of helping with practicalities etc.

I don't think that's actually true. If they do move, what you'll get is too much demand for 1/2 bedroom properties, and there are nowhere near enough of these. These would need to be built first, which probably means regulation on what is built.

 

[Dai Corner]

I don't think that's actually true. If they do move, what you'll get is too much demand for 1/2 bedroom properties, and there are nowhere near enough of these. These would need to be built first, which probably means regulation on what is built.

My parents are in their 80s and the 'too old to move' category so will stay in their large house until they die or have to go into care homes.

As I've posted before, I'd be happy to move from my 3 bed detached to a smaller property while I'm in my sixties but I'd like a bungalow (in case of future mobility issues) and they are in short supply even though I'm prepared to pay a premium in £/sq ft terms. A two bed flat or terraced house isn't an attractive proposition.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I've posted before, I'd be happy to move from my 3 bed detached to a smaller property while I'm in my sixties but I'd like a bungalow (in case of future mobility issues) and they are in short supply even though I'm prepared to pay a premium in £/sq ft terms. A two bed flat or terraced house isn't an attractive proposition.

Why is a flat not an attractive proposition, assuming it has a lift and isn't in a super-high block in case of breakdowns? The trouble with bungalows is they make very poor use of land. Building them makes no more sense than building 4 bedroom houses.

 

[Dai Corner]

Why is a flat not an attractive proposition, assuming it has a lift and isn't in a super-high block in case of breakdowns? The trouble with bungalows is they make very poor use of land. Building them makes no more sense than building 4 bedroom houses.

Because I like to have some private outdoor space and a garage for the car, be allowed to keep a cat or dog and not annoy the neighbours when I want to listen to music after 9pm. There are also the issues with leaseholds and shared maintainance already mentioned.

I recognise that bungalows don't make the best use of land, but would be happy to sell my house and buy a similar sized plot of land with a bungalow on. A smaller garden and 2 beds instead of 3 wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Senex]

Why is a flat not an attractive proposition, assuming it has a lift and isn't in a super-high block in case of breakdowns? The trouble with bungalows is they make very poor use of land. Building them makes no more sense than building 4 bedroom houses.

The big problem with flats in this country (and I had 40 years experience of living in them) is the very poor sound insulation provided in this country, both in conversions and in new-build flats. The last flat I lived in was new-build a some fifteen years ago and had superb modern heat insulation properties, but the sound insulation between adjacent flats and through floors and ceilings was just as bad as ever.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I recognise that bungalows don't make the best use of land, but would be happy to sell my house and buy a similar sized plot of land with a bungalow on. A smaller garden and 2 beds instead of 3 wouldn't be a problem.

My point was that there isn't much point doing that because you don't actually free up any land by doing so, and it's building land that is the main issue.

I certainly recognise the issues with leasehold, it's a big off-putter to me. We need to ban leasehold for residential properties completely, replacing it with commonhold for flats. Other than profiteering and shared ownership[1] freehold is the correct tenure for houses; you can use covenants to require maintenance charges for shared gardens/unadopted roads to be paid.

[1] Which I'd ban anyway, as it serves no sensible purpose other than sustaining high prices by making them affordable.