We also need to make the most of what we have by repurposing.
Shops are closing. Flats above are not used. Office space is vacant. The old could be encouraged to downsize by subsidy.
There are multiple options other than new builds.
"Affordable" housing bad. Nobody I know can afford so called "affordable" housing - round here it's normally twice the price of existing housing, and smaller and not as robust.
Im getting fed up with organizations that are given the lead by this Government and bleating it's impossible; at least try. Something is better than inertia. At last you have leadership.
How? Where are the trades? Most people are waiting over 12 months for a home extension due to skills shortages. A lack of apprenticeships for 20 years has left a massive hole in the skilled trades market.
I’m all for building but have no idea who is actually going to build them
Desperately needed and must be kept under public ownership - selling off our social housing may have helped individuals get on the property ladder but it has cost the tax payer dearly (and individuals due to rises in house prices).
Homeownership through social housing wasn’t, and isn’t a bad thing. The issue lies in the failure to reinvest the proceeds.
Without ring-fencing the funds to build replacement housing, the system was always going to lead to depletion, adding to the housing crisis instead of addressing it.
1/
I’ll admit I’m a bit biased—my parents have spent 30 years in a council house, making it their home.
Yet reducing new build costs while encouraging people to put down roots in their home and community is far better than selling stock off and paying the full cost of a new build.
2/
The concern of people flipping for profit could be solved by reclaiming any discounts if the house is sold or turned into a rental within a set period after purchase.
This would balance fairness for residents and taxpayers whilst protecting the integrity and purpose of social housing.
I’d need to see it before believing it. I think AR genuinely cares for the young, the poor and the vulnerable, but KS, RR and other prominent Labour MPs couldn’t give a flying fig for such people. I wish they would put their shoes on someone else’s feet and try to imagine what it’s like.
Before the election i said that they had to build more social housing, if they manage to do that and lower the NHS waiting list, they are on the path to win the next election
Hard though. The planning system is such that even applications that comply with local plans take 6mo + to get approval. Then maybe 3 years to build. I’m not convinced there’ll be time for people to feel the benefit before they’re back at the ballot boxes again.
Social housing and affordable housing are very different things. Wander what proportion the former will account for?
More greenfield sites being destroyed where brownfields could have been used - let alone the 1m+ long-term empty houses in the UK that could be repaired and re-used before new builds
Desperately needed. There also needs to be an incentive for getting people to downsize freeing up big, family sized homes which only have one occupant in them for 90% of the time and call a halt to the practice of second homes and too many big houses becoming HMOs (Houses of Multiple Occupancy).
Let's hope so. I just bought a flat, it was the most difficult thing I will ever do, but I don't mind if house prices stabilise or fall, because I'm not a cunt. If no one builds houses young families will suffer.
Success is going to depend on the ratio of social to affordable, needs to be much in the former's favour. AR is the most convincing minister when it comes to addressing the wider needs of low income people so I hope she's allowed to drive this forward. A very big test of this Labour administration.
What’s needed is more social housing, not the vaguely termed "affordable" housing.
Shelter is a basic need, yet ownership benefits few (not that it’s bad). With private rentals dominated by Buy-to-Lets, many struggle to secure this fundamental necessity in today’s housing system.
“Affordable” to who? People in good jobs can’t even afford to buy homes. This is aimed at them. But even so being able to buy 25% of a home only and then having to pay high rent and service charge is not “affordable”. We need more social housing.
Comments
https://youtu.be/ucoNQuHl5Js?si=ETg81z4tHOo3vUET
Shops are closing. Flats above are not used. Office space is vacant. The old could be encouraged to downsize by subsidy.
There are multiple options other than new builds.
"Affordable" housing bad. Nobody I know can afford so called "affordable" housing - round here it's normally twice the price of existing housing, and smaller and not as robust.
I’m all for building but have no idea who is actually going to build them
Without ring-fencing the funds to build replacement housing, the system was always going to lead to depletion, adding to the housing crisis instead of addressing it.
This then led to those same houses being sold privately at a great profit to those involved.
The taxpayer is the one who eventually has to make up the shortfall.
I’ll admit I’m a bit biased—my parents have spent 30 years in a council house, making it their home.
Yet reducing new build costs while encouraging people to put down roots in their home and community is far better than selling stock off and paying the full cost of a new build.
The concern of people flipping for profit could be solved by reclaiming any discounts if the house is sold or turned into a rental within a set period after purchase.
This would balance fairness for residents and taxpayers whilst protecting the integrity and purpose of social housing.
More greenfield sites being destroyed where brownfields could have been used - let alone the 1m+ long-term empty houses in the UK that could be repaired and re-used before new builds
Shelter is a basic need, yet ownership benefits few (not that it’s bad). With private rentals dominated by Buy-to-Lets, many struggle to secure this fundamental necessity in today’s housing system.