UK housing supply - the problem & solutions

[underbank]

My nearest neighbours are three single people each in 3 bed houses, a couple in a 4 bed house and a couple with two teenagers in a 3 bed house. Four out of the five are owner-occupied. The other is privately rented while the owner who used to live there works abroad.

Clearly this isn't an efficient use of the housing stock but owners don't want to sell up or downsize for fear of being unable to re-enter the market or trade back up to a comparable property should they want to.

Same around here - opposite us is a 4 bed single occupied and a 5 bed single (with 2 kids at Uni). Diagonally each way are a 4 and 5 bed both occupied by retired couples. Next door, single in a 3 bed, and next door the other way a mother/son in a 4 bed. We're on a late 70s estate, mostly 4 bed, some 3 some 5, but there isn't a single primary school child and just 2 or 3 sixth formers. These are family houses, but no small children anymore. There were plenty when we moved in 20 years ago, lots of cycling and footie games in the road, but the kids have mostly grown up and beggared off down South leaving quite a vacuum. The parents are getting older and many are now too old to be able to move themselves, so look likely to languish until they die or go into care. I think there should be a lot more help/encouragement for downsizing, i.e. reduced rates or zero stamp duty would be a good start if you downsize, maybe also practical help with the house contents decluttering/disposal/moving. One of our neighbours are an old couple in their 80s who'd love to move, but just aren't physically capable of sorting through all their stuff, viewing houses, etc - for them, it's the easy option just to stay put.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stamp duty should be abolished anyway. It would be better to tax ownership of property than sale/purchase of it. Any tax on selling property discourages moving around for flexibility which should be encouraged so the workforce is flexible and commuting is reduced.

If anything I'd look to put tax relief on the costs associated with moving your primary residence.

 

[Dai Corner]

Why is a couple with two teenagers in a three bed house under-occupied?

They're the only household out of the five that is fully occupied. They'd probably rather have moved to the 4 bed if it had been available and affordable but they built a conservatory instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They're the only household out of the five that is fully occupied. They'd probably rather have moved to the 4 bed if it had been available and affordable but they built a conservatory instead.

It's worth noting that a couple (or single person) in a 2 bed house/flat may not be underoccupied. If they work from home, they may require an office space, for example. I wouldn't drop to 1 bedroom for that reason (also because a spare bed in the same room is quite useful for guests).

 

[HSTEd]

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

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

In any case the main shortage is of smaller homes, not larger ones, as in vast swathes of the country building them new is uneconomic (as building a small house costs about £100K pretty much regardless of where in the country it is built, there is no point building a house that will cost £100K to build in, say, a small Yorkshire former mining village, because you'll lose money on it).

Flats are more economic, but they're inevitably too small, without outdoor space and come with an ownership model that, in England and Wales, gives you fewer rights than a Council tenant, which means I am not interested. The most important thing that is needed in the context of flats in England and Wales is an outright and total ban on residential leasehold. Either sell it with a share of freehold ("condominium" ownership or commonhold), or rent it.

 

[HSTEd]

In any case the main shortage is of smaller homes, not larger ones, as in vast swathes of the country building them new is uneconomic (as building a small house costs about £100K pretty much regardless of where in the country it is built, there is no point building a house that will cost £100K to build in, say, a small Yorkshire former mining village, because you'll lose money on it).

Well this is largely due to restrictions imposed by the council involving planning consents and the like.
If anyone could throw up a house anywhere, house prices would (obviously) collapse and we would see a wider mix of housing available.

 

[Dai Corner]

In any case the main shortage is of smaller homes, not larger ones, as in vast swathes of the country building them new is uneconomic

I'd happily buy a 2 bed bungalow (new or otherwise) for roughly what I could sell my 3 bed house for.

Unfortunately very few come on the market. It's almost a case of waiting for someone to die or go into a nursing home.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd happily buy a 2 bed bungalow (new or otherwise) for roughly what I could sell my 3 bed house for.

Unfortunately very few come on the market. It's almost a case of waiting for someone to die or go into a nursing home.

For good reason. Bungalows make poor use of available land, as they take up the footprint of a 4-bedroom house, and so are only really for those who need them for accessibility reasons.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well this is largely due to restrictions imposed by the council involving planning consents and the like.
If anyone could throw up a house anywhere, house prices would (obviously) collapse and we would see a wider mix of housing available.

They wouldn't, because nobody is going to build a house they can't sell at a profit. £100K is about the cost of the materials and labour, and that isn't going down.

 

[HSTEd]

£100K is about the cost of the materials and labour, and that isn't going down.

A house doesn't have to cost £100k to build.
It only does because our current market is restricted by the council and by the cartel of housebuilders to the point that it can't easily adapt to new materials and techniques.

There is a reason that supermarkets aren't built out of bricks or hand-built concrete blockwork any more.
See things like the barnhaus.

 

[nlogax]

Well this is largely due to restrictions imposed by the council involving planning consents and the like.
If anyone could throw up a house anywhere, house prices would (obviously) collapse and we would see a wider mix of housing available.

With this government I’m half-expecting to see some sort of relaxation of planning rules.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A house doesn't have to cost £100k to build.
It only does because our current market is restricted by the council and by the cartel of housebuilders to the point that it can't easily adapt to new materials and techniques.

This is not true. I got the £100K figure from the programme "The £100K House" which mostly features people doing self-builds for around that price and demonstrates just how many corners have to be cut to meet it.

This link:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/grand-designs-style-house-costs-just-7945802
...suggests that the house you quote costs £41K to make. That means to manufacture the prefabricated building materials. You then need to transport it to site, build foundations, put it up, wire it, plumb it, plaster it and decorate it, then have building control sign it off (don't suggest abolishing that, as the result would be a dangerous housing stock as people cut corners). That'll easily get you up to £100K - just refurbishing an existing house throughout with a new kitchen and bathroom is going to cost you well upwards of £20K unless you're DIYing and so have no labour cost.

There is a reason that supermarkets aren't built out of bricks or hand-built concrete blockwork any more.
See things like the barnhaus.

And there is a reason why houses are - that is what people want to buy. Most houses now are timber-framed with plasterboard interiors. The outside is brick because that's what people want it to look like, it's not structural. FWIW it wouldn't change the cost much to clad the outside, but that model is dead - even in houses people don't want to live in Grenfell.

 

[HSTEd]

...suggests that the house you quote costs £41K to make. That means to manufacture the building materials. You then need to transport it to site, build foundations, put it up, wire it, plumb it, plaster it and decorate it.

EDIT: {Most of the other sources on that Pentan barnhaus list it as a "construction" cost.
Not a "to make" cost.
And given the very low cost of the individual components I am tempted to believe it is a construction cost.}

Why does this house contain plaster?
That's possibly the most labour intensive wall covering you could think of.

The house would come with a pre-fabricated modular kitchen that would assemble like a giant block of lego.
Ditto the bathroom.
These things should be commodity items, hundreds of thousands are made each year after all!

It would use forced air heating, or simply an air source heat pump in each room to remove the necessity for circulating hot water plumbing. (Portable heat pumps derived from portable air conditioning technology are really cheap nowadays)

It would do any number of other things that aren't done because there is functionally no competition in the house building industry.

That'll easily get you up to £100K - just refurbishing an existing house throughout with a new kitchen and bathroom is going to cost you well upwards of £20K unless you're DIYing and so have no labour cost.

Refurbishment is unknown in places like Japan, where they simply rip a house down and build a new one.
It's much more expensive (especially with expensive labour) to work around something than tear it down and start fresh.

And there is a reason why houses are - that is what people want to buy.

There is little or no choice in the matter.
Only very strictly conventional properties can get past the roadblocks thrown up by the council.

Hell if it wasn't for planning restrictions, huge numbers of people would probably be living in static caravans.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is little or no choice in the matter.
Only very strictly conventional properties can get past the roadblocks thrown up by the council.

Absolute rubbish.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxley_Woods (though also read about the problems!)

Hell if it wasn't for planning restrictions, huge numbers of people would probably be living in static caravans.

I'm not sure that would be of benefit to anyone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The house would come with a pre-fabricated modular kitchen that would assemble like a giant block of lego.

Have you ever fitted a kitchen? They basically are, you know. They are still costly, surprisingly so, despite a very large amount of competition in the market. Use plastic plumbing then that is, too.

It would use forced air heating, or simply an air source heat pump in each room to remove the necessity for circulating hot water plumbing. (Portable heat pumps derived from portable air conditioning technology are really cheap nowadays)

Really cheap? I just Googled and £500+ is your price range. Gas boilers don't cost that when you've purchased one for each room.

Refurbishment is unknown in places like Japan, where they simply rip a house down and build a new one.
It's much more expensive (especially with expensive labour) to work around something than tear it down and start fresh.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Recycle is last. Disposable homes are a terrible idea. They will essentially be needed in perpetuity, so far better to build them so they will last in that way.

 

[HSTEd]

Absolute rubbish.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxley_Woods (though also read about the problems!)

Yes, so a member of the housing cartel (Taylor Wimpey) failed to adequately produce an alternative to the housing that makes them stratospheric amounts of money?

Asking them to help innovate to reduce their own profit margins is an interesting idea.

I'm not sure that would be of benefit to anyone.

They would have housing that they weren't being bled dry paying a landlord for?
And they would probably have better living conditions?

 

[Bletchleyite]

They would have housing that they weren't being bled dry paying a landlord for?
And they would probably have better living conditions?

In a caravan? Seriously? Have you lived in one?

 

[HSTEd]

Have you ever fitted a kitchen? They basically are, you know. They are still costly, surprisingly so, despite a very large amount of competition in the market. Use plastic plumbing then that is, too.

There is no reason to ever use anything but plastic plumbing any more.

Really cheap? I just Googled and £500+ is your price range. Gas boilers don't cost that when you've purchased one for each room.

Does the gas boiler magically attach itself to the building and gas-safe rate itself, or attach an enormous complex plumbing system to itself, with radiators installed over the place?

Wet central heating systems cost many many thousands of pounds.
Air ducted systems would be much better on that score.

Once you get the scale that individual heating units are too expensive, then you can use air duct systems that are much simpler to install than wet-systems.

After all a leak in an air duct is not necessarily a catastrophic problem.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Recycle is last. Disposable homes are a terrible idea. They will essentially be needed in perpetuity, so far better to build them so they will last in that way.

Except we have a housing shortage today.
Are you going to tell all the people waiting for houses they can't have them because we have to build houses that last forever?

And we end up demolishing a substantial number of houses as it is as part of "densification".
If what we want to do is build up the housing stock then we should simply ban demolitions.

In a caravan? Seriously? Have you lived in one?

I lived in something that was best described as a glorified shed, yes.
And I've also lived in worse places.

If it was a choice of being able to buy a glorified static caravan or rent a house, I would buy the static caravan every single time.
And I think a very large number of people would do the same.

The simple way to answer this question is to relax planning restrictions over an area of the country and see what happens.
I think house prices would fall drastically and you apparently do not.

Only way to tell for sure is to try.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no reason to ever use anything but plastic plumbing any more.

While I have used it (as I'm not competent with a blowtorch) there are reasons, primarily longevity, it's only designed to last 10-20 years.

 

[underbank]

With this government I’m half-expecting to see some sort of relaxation of planning rules.

Let's hope so.

One of my clients was a builder who bought a farm to develop - typical farmhouse, a couple of farm worker cottages and a barn conversion into 8 separate units. The council would only give planning permission for the barn conversion units to be holiday lets - i.e. they imposed restrictions similar to caravan sites which prevent people living there all year. Just why? When you have locals complaining they can't afford local homes, why on Earth would a council prevent a number of new homes from being lived in. Makes no sense. It took him years of appeals etc (costing tens of thousands) to get the council to change their PP to allow residential use and he's now built and sold them.

Similar happened to another builder client who couldn't get PP to convert a derelict city centre property into residential - council decided it was in a retail zone so refused PP. 10 years later and it's still derelict.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Similar happened to another builder client who couldn't get PP to convert a derelict city centre property into residential - council decided it was in a retail zone so refused PP. 10 years later and it's still derelict.

Zoning is something we could do with getting rid of completely. The mixed-use approach in most European cities is far nicer - city centres that aren't dead after work, for instance, as people live there too - not just young professionals in posh flats, but families with kids too.

 

[Jozhua]

Go for the halfway between a house and a flat, the maisonette? I live in a block of them where there are two rows of two storey maisonettes on top of each other. Slightly less of the crammed in feeling as everyone gets their own front door to the world, but you're still going vertical with four storeys. It does seem quite a seventies thing though as that's when this block dates from.
More recent developments in Oxford have gone for the three storey townhouse with a small garage on the ground floor. I'm not sure you could stretch it much higher and retain the attractiveness to buyers. If you're squeezing together for density the staircases are going to start eating more significantly into the usable space in the house. Also, who really wants to have to go up/down multiple flights of stairs all the time inside their own house?

It's actually one of the better 70's style designs! I really enjoy those types of houses, typically have nice large windows and lots of light. They look very at home in most types of areas.

I’ve only been in a flat briefly during student days, and I hated it!

As regards space at home, I’d like to know the answer to that myself! Recently we wanted to get an exercise bike and were surveying round the house to see where it might go and couldn’t find a single viable location. I’m a bit of a collector which means there’s stuff everywhere, I wouldn’t go so far as to say a hoarder but equally I’m one of those who doesn’t like throwing away stuff that still has a use.

Returning to the original question, anecdotally in my experience many or most people in flats have them because it’s the best they can manage, not because they ideally want a flat.

Fair enough, it's not for everyone. Really, it would be nice to see more variety in housing stock though. Even if the buildings themselves don't bring much inspiration, you can't deny the benefits that apartments bring like allowing people to live closer to work, education and amenities. At the end of the day as well, it's better for those who say it's the best they can manage to have that roof over their head!

Some of the 60's stuff is pretty grim, that's undeniable, but many newer buildings/conversions I have no problems living in. There is also a middle ground to be found with things like townhouses/row houses.

If you think about it, if we build more flats for those who want them, then that also leaves more single family homes in the market for those who do. There's probably also quite a significant number of people who don't really mind, especially young people at uni or just getting started with their careers.

It’s so one bedroom is for Monday, one for Tuesday, one for Wednesday, one for Thursday, one for Friday and one for the weekend...

Regards to flats tho, I’ve lived in a few and they really aren’t bad.

As to terraced housing like in Coronation Street, they don’t build streets like that anymore more then pity.

Terraced housing seems quite efficient! Somewhat more than semi detached and a lot more than fully detached. People do seem to want fully detached homes though, even if it comes at significant cost to interior space.

A factor that I don't think has been discussed here yet is under-occupation.

My nearest neighbours are three single people each in 3 bed houses, a couple in a 4 bed house and a couple with two teenagers in a 3 bed house. Four out of the five are owner-occupied. The other is privately rented while the owner who used to live there works abroad.

Clearly this isn't an efficient use of the housing stock but owners don't want to sell up or downsize for fear of being unable to re-enter the market or trade back up to a comparable property should they want to.

Stamp duty should be abolished anyway. It would be better to tax ownership of property than sale/purchase of it. Any tax on selling property discourages moving around for flexibility which should be encouraged so the workforce is flexible and commuting is reduced.

If anything I'd look to put tax relief on the costs associated with moving your primary residence.

That's quite an interesting idea actually, maybe we should look at changing incentives to make it easier for people to move.

In any case the main shortage is of smaller homes, not larger ones, as in vast swathes of the country building them new is uneconomic (as building a small house costs about £100K pretty much regardless of where in the country it is built, there is no point building a house that will cost £100K to build in, say, a small Yorkshire former mining village, because you'll lose money on it).

Flats are more economic, but they're inevitably too small, without outdoor space and come with an ownership model that, in England and Wales, gives you fewer rights than a Council tenant, which means I am not interested. The most important thing that is needed in the context of flats in England and Wales is an outright and total ban on residential leasehold. Either sell it with a share of freehold ("condominium" ownership or commonhold), or rent it.

Condominiums would sell like hotcakes if they could be found in the UK!

It would be good to see a better mixture of flats. Whilst obviously the cosy cleaning cupboard serves the important lower end of the market, it is definitely worth looking at making ones that are a tad more spacious with lofty ceilings to boot. I'm assuming many of the higher end units in London are probably quite nice on the inside, so it can be done. Until developers have incentives to attract people out of single family development in the rest of the country, then I doubt changes will be made to the buildings.

A house doesn't have to cost £100k to build.
It only does because our current market is restricted by the council and by the cartel of housebuilders to the point that it can't easily adapt to new materials and techniques.

There is a reason that supermarkets aren't built out of bricks or hand-built concrete blockwork any more.
See things like the barnhaus.

There is no reason to ever use anything but plastic plumbing any more.

Does the gas boiler magically attach itself to the building and gas-safe rate itself, or attach an enormous complex plumbing system to itself, with radiators installed over the place?

Wet central heating systems cost many many thousands of pounds.
Air ducted systems would be much better on that score.

Once you get the scale that individual heating units are too expensive, then you can use air duct systems that are much simpler to install than wet-systems.

After all a leak in an air duct is not necessarily a catastrophic problem.

Air ducted systems are absolutely fantastic! When I stay with friends/relatives in North America, the heating/cooling is often so good it's un-noticeable. In -10 temperatures in Canada, the heating doesn't even break a sweat, going on and off every 5/10 minutes. Totally agree in regards to leaks and frankly, the system is just more effective. Plus, you can utilise an air-con unit for summers, something which is becoming increasingly unbearable in the UK.

Let's hope so.

One of my clients was a builder who bought a farm to develop - typical farmhouse, a couple of farm worker cottages and a barn conversion into 8 separate units. The council would only give planning permission for the barn conversion units to be holiday lets - i.e. they imposed restrictions similar to caravan sites which prevent people living there all year. Just why? When you have locals complaining they can't afford local homes, why on Earth would a council prevent a number of new homes from being lived in. Makes no sense. It took him years of appeals etc (costing tens of thousands) to get the council to change their PP to allow residential use and he's now built and sold them.

Similar happened to another builder client who couldn't get PP to convert a derelict city centre property into residential - council decided it was in a retail zone so refused PP. 10 years later and it's still derelict.

It's maddening! Having strict 'zones' doesn't really make sense anymore, except for circumstances involving air/noise pollution beyond normal levels. Mixed use development is the rage in quite a few areas of the UK and abroad for good reason.

 

[Jozhua]

Zoning is something we could do with getting rid of completely. The mixed-use approach in most European cities is far nicer - city centres that aren't dead after work, for instance, as people live there too - not just young professionals in posh flats, but families with kids too.

Yes! It's actually quite unsafe to have retail only, you end up with streets that are almost empty and none of the people watching grandmas looking out in case you get mugged. In fact I read something in my local city council document about ensuring new retail development and public space is somewhat overlooked by residential, partially for this reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Condominiums would sell like hotcakes if they could be found in the UK!

Depends what you mean by condominiums. People have the view that they are tower blocks with large, premium flats. They often are, but that's not what it means. The word describes the ownership model for them, which is essentially a "share of freehold" type model similar to commonhold (or Scottish tenements). We need that model in England and Wales - leasehold needs to be abolished entirely for residential property including retrospectively in some form - it's a hark back to a feudal past which favours absent, corporate landlords over the people who buy property to live in it.

Air ducted systems are absolutely fantastic! When I stay with friends/relatives in North America, the heating/cooling is often so good it's un-noticeable. In -10 temperatures in Canada, the heating doesn't even break a sweat, going on and off every 5/10 minutes. Totally agree in regards to leaks and frankly, the system is just more effective. Plus, you can utilise an air-con unit for summers, something which is becoming increasingly unbearable in the UK.

I'd rather see aircon banned in the UK than encouraged. It is a very inefficient use of energy. Just open the window if it's hot.

There also needs to be a ban on building air-conditioned greenhouses as offices, but that's one for another thread.

 

[The Ham]

Not seen any terraced housing been built for a good few years, plenty of semi detached and detached yes but nothing like the 2 up 2 down terraced housing.

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.

That shouldn't make much difference but when you cut 1m off a 9m garden that makes as big difference to the garden space. Especially given that they are often provided with sheds to store cycles in.

 

[Jozhua]

I'd rather see aircon banned in the UK than encouraged. It is a very inefficient use of energy. Just open the window if it's hot.

There also needs to be a ban on building air-conditioned greenhouses as offices, but that's one for another thread.

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!

 

[najaB]

I'd rather see aircon banned in the UK than encouraged. It is a very inefficient use of energy. Just open the window if it's hot.

Individual, window-mounted units as are popular in US cities I agree with. But whole house forced air HVAC systems are more efficient than hydronic heating systems using gas boilers. And they give cooling on the few days of the year that it's needed as an added benefit. Doubly so when they use a ground source for the working temperature gradient.

District systems are an order of magnitude more efficient.

 

[GusB]

We definitely need a bigger mix of property types. When I was younger I would have been happy with a bedsit "studio flat" arrangement, but there seemed to be quite a stigma attached to living in such places. When I lived in Aberdeen I knew quite a few people who occupied a fairly small space with a shared living/sleeping area with separate kitchen and bathroom. It would have been ideal for me, but I was allocated a two-bedroom flat, and due to the local authority rules about refusals, I had to take it at the time or risk being bumped down the list.

I'm not a big fan of multiple occupancy flats with shared facilities like bathrooms and kitchens. I get that they're space-efficient, but it's pot luck as to whether or not you get on with the people you're sharing with. Perhaps such arrangements are fine for short-term transient workers who don't intend to put down any roots, but I don't think they're a good long-term solution.

We've discussed flats vs houses, maisonettes and tenements, but I haven't seen anyone mention the four-in-a-block. Everyone gets their own front door and a wee bit of land, but it's more space-efficient than bungalows, and more people can be accommodated than in a traditional two-bedroom semi if it's designed properly.

 

[The Ham]

We definitely need a bigger mix of property types. When I was younger I would have been happy with a bedsit "studio flat" arrangement, but there seemed to be quite a stigma attached to living in such places. When I lived in Aberdeen I knew quite a few people who occupied a fairly small space with a shared living/sleeping area with separate kitchen and bathroom. It would have been ideal for me, but I was allocated a two-bedroom flat, and due to the local authority rules about refusals, I had to take it at the time or risk being bumped down the list.

I'm not a big fan of multiple occupancy flats with shared facilities like bathrooms and kitchens. I get that they're space-efficient, but it's pot luck as to whether or not you get on with the people you're sharing with. Perhaps such arrangements are fine for short-term transient workers who don't intend to put down any roots, but I don't think they're a good long-term solution.

We've discussed flats vs houses, maisonettes and tenements, but I haven't seen anyone mention the four-in-a-block. Everyone gets their own front door and a wee bit of land, but it's more space-efficient than bungalows, and more people can be accommodated than in a traditional two-bedroom semi if it's designed properly.

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.