PDA

View Full Version : Cheap Housing


Dewi9
4th January 2016, 11:32 AM
Big announcements in National Newspapers today saying The Government has pledged £1.2Billion (that is a one and a two and eight noughts) pounds to build 30,000 new homes on Government / NHS / Local Authority brownfield sites.

The homes will be 'starter homes'. But, hang on a minute, what price will they cost ?

Working from the figures given, we have £1,200,000,000 divided by 30,000 - hum, ha, yes, gives us .... £40,000 per house. That is incredibly cheap.

Hang on, that can't be right. These houses are going to be built in Dover, Gosport, Chichester and even London ! Where house prices are (probably) not much below £200K on average. So what gives ?

Well, it does appear, from the newspaper report) that the Government will be using land which it already owns (one way or another), so cost per building plot will be zero (I assume) which should give a saving of £70K(here where I live) up to £150K 'down south' per house.

Big question will be, what price will these homes be offered for on the open market, or will they be allocated to deserving families on the Local Authority housing list ?

One last question I would ask is whether the MOD / NHS or whoever currently 'owns' this land will be reimbersed the market value for the sites, or is this exercise just a cheap way of gaining headlines and attempting to fulfil election promises ?

David

Walti
4th January 2016, 01:13 PM
The cost of building a house is in the £30 region, the cost of the land is the rest!

Check your house insurance and you'll find a rebuild cost mentioned, prepare to be upset!

Zuiko
4th January 2016, 10:11 PM
If the houses are sold at market value they will still be incredibly difficult for people on modest incomes to afford. The capital raised from the sale of publically owned land will no doubt be used to reduce the National Deficit, finance tax cuts or provide additional funding for local authorities, reducing the need to increase Council Tax. How politically convenient. :rolleyes: We can be sure of one thing, that the extra money will not be used for long term investment in the infrastructure.

If the houses are sold below market value, it will of course help many low income families buy their own home, but that would obviously be unfair to others on low incomes who are not in the position to take advantage of the scheme. It would be selective subsidisation.

Personally, I feel that we need to get away from the aspiration for everybody to own their home. It results in a policy of not having enough local authority owned houses with affordable rents and forces those who cannot raise a mortgage into the private rental market where rents are far too high.

I would like to scrap the right to buy policy and empower local authorities to build truly affordable, low rent accommodation using council owned land wherever possible, or using compulsory purchasing powers to acquire long-term disused brownfield sites at low cost.

Naughty Nigel
6th January 2016, 01:14 PM
£40,000 would build a very well specified house if the land was free.

There is a huge amount of brownfield land that could and should be used, but it is not attractive to commercial developers for a variety of reasons; not least that it costs more to clear and develop, and that most buyers prefer the idea of living on a greenfield site as close as possible to local amenities, main roads and so forth.

Part of the problem is that we now attach far too much personal and monetary value to our houses, which makes things difficult when perhaps we should really leave them behind and build elsewhere.

As an example, huge housing estates were built in the early part of the 20th century to house workers in heavy industries such as mining, steel making and ship building; most of which have now largely disappeared. However, those living in the estates are effectively trapped, unable to move elsewhere to find work.

The recent flooding has also provided numerous examples of houses that were built in the wrong place, on flood plains or just too close to rivers. Government can never spend enough money on flood defences, and in any case there are practical limits to how high flood defences can be built. So should we spend £billions on flood defences that may still be overwhelmed, or should we move the houses elsewhere?

Half an hour from here, high up on the hills of County Durham, the landscape is littered with the remains of abandoned houses and old lead mine workings from the 19th century, when homes were little more than a shelter and somewhere to live and sleep. When the mines closed whole communities simply moved on; often to other parts of the country.

(As an aside, there are some remote parts of Co Durham where one can detect a strong Welsh accent owing to the marge numbers of Welsh who came here to work in the mines several generations ago.)

Whatever happens, I sincerely hope that these now houses won't be built in areas prone to flooding.

Harold Gough
6th January 2016, 07:25 PM
I have a vague memory of a (how?) similar scheme, several years ago, where the price was to be £60,000, but it proved to be non-viable.

By the way, they won't be for everyone because on new estates the parking of vans (white van, caravan, campervan, etc.) is prohibited (by developers and/or planning authorities) on their drives.

Harold

Naughty Nigel
6th January 2016, 07:35 PM
By the way, they won't be for everyone because on new estates the parking of vans (white van, caravan, campervan, etc.) is prohibited (by developers and/or planning authorities) on their drives.

Harold

We have a similar 'covenant' where we live, although the houses were built in the late 1960's.

Caravans, commercial vehicles and so forth make the area look unsightly and undesirable, but with the tiny properties being built nowadays such vehicles cause serious problems with road access.

Nobody here complains if a neighbour brings a caravan home for a few days, (there is plenty of space), but I believe we can complain to the council if it is a regular event. I don't think any of our neighbours drive vans. ;)

DerekW
6th January 2016, 08:14 PM
I would have thought that your new diesel transport that you used to do business around the country was a type of "commercial vehicles and so forth" <g>

Naughty Nigel
6th January 2016, 08:19 PM
I would have thought that your new diesel transport that you used to do business around the country was a type of "commercial vehicles and so forth" <g>

Ouch! :D

I must admit I had misgivings about buying a diesel Jag but it really is very quiet and civilised, and not at all underpowered. ;)

DerekW
6th January 2016, 11:26 PM
I cannot really talk as I have a 2.4 litre twin turbo diesel, with at least three radar transmitters, more tv cameras than I can see etc So far no machine guns mounted on the roof - I guess that would be on the US model.

Naughty Nigel
7th January 2016, 09:27 AM
I cannot really talk as I have a 2.4 litre twin turbo diesel, with at least three radar transmitters, more tv cameras than I can see etc So far no machine guns mounted on the roof - I guess that would be on the US model.

We are well off topic now so we may as well carry on. :)

Which model is that BTW?

One thing that impresses me with the Jag is that far from being a gas guzzler (as most people expect) I get around 50 MPG on a run.

Our next-door neighbour, who drives a VW and is a bit of a 'tree hugger', has always been very critical of my choice of car and its effect on the environment. However he has been very quiet on the subject over the past few months. I cannot think why. :D

I also like to remind him of the pollution caused by transporting his VW all the way from Stuttgart or wherever they are built, rather than Castle Bromwich. :)

Oddly enough his daughter and son-in-law are petrol heads, so I would love to be a fly on the wall when they are sitting around the dining table. :D

DerekW
7th January 2016, 10:17 AM
It is a Volvo XC60 D5 R-Design Polestar - so quite pokey, as it is AWD it only gets about 35 to 40mpg, but what I really like is the higher position so I get a good view of the traffic jam.

Because of the various ownerships of Jaguar Landrover and Volvo Jags and Volvo are had quite a relationship with Ford including quite a bit of design sharing. The BMW ownership of Landrover is said to have helped with BMWs move into the Xn range.

Naughty Nigel
7th January 2016, 10:32 AM
It is a Volvo XC60 D5 R-Design Polestar - so quite pokey, as it is AWD it only gets about 35 to 40mpg, but what I really like is the higher position so I get a good view of the traffic jam.

Because of the various ownerships of Jaguar Landrover and Volvo Jags and Volvo are had quite a relationship with Ford including quite a bit of design sharing. The BMW ownership of Landrover is said to have helped with BMWs move into the Xn range.

I was told that BMW bought the Range Rover brand (not Land Rover) so they could develop their Xn series.

I'm not sure how well this has worked though as there was a report in our local news last week of a stolen Range Rover Evoke which was being chased by a Police BMW X5. Apparently the thieves got away by driving the Evoke across a very wet and muddy field, of which we have plenty at the moment. The Police tried to follow in their X5 but got stuck in the mud! :D

I don't know what the relationship is between JLR, RR and BMW as I believe some Range Rovers are fitted with Jaguar engines and others with BMW. Jaguar uses the same automatic gearboxes as BMW but I think these are outsourced.

ringneck
7th January 2016, 04:22 PM
While off topic.........when is the 1st reference to cooking going to pop up.....totally fed up with the millions (??) of such progs on all the time....a property show (lets see how they cook a fish)...countryfile (lets see how they cook a Badger).

People need to BUY homes as all the rented properties are controlled by greedy landlords -most friends of the powers that be.....with rents of £600 pounds a month for a tiny flat on a busy main road.

Naughty Nigel
7th January 2016, 04:36 PM
People need to BUY homes as all the rented properties are controlled by greedy landlords -most friends of the powers that be.....with rents of £600 pounds a month for a tiny flat on a busy main road.

I believe home ownership in the UK is higher than in most other European countries, where renting is more popular. Presumably their landlords are not as greedy as ours, or perhaps they have better legislation to protect tenants.

Having said that some landlords loose £thousands owing to bad tenants who refuse to pay, refuse to leave until a Court tells them to, blight properties with bad credit ratings and then trash properties when they do eventually leave. It works both ways.

As for the 'powers that be', a wicked capitalist who used to live near to us 'invested' £500,000 in a pair of flats for his sons whilst they were studying at Bristol University. I daresay he is renting them out as upmarket student lets these days, although given his current job as Middle East Peace Envoy I'm sure he doesn't need the money. :rolleyes:


I totally agree about the cooking programmes, especially when they wheel out so called 'celebrities' who probably don't need to venture into the kitchen anyway.

pandora
7th January 2016, 08:52 PM
........ as it is AWD it only gets about 35 to 40mpg.
Well a gallon of gas would get you from Lands End to John 'o Groats, wouldn't it? ..... *erm

Naughty Nigel
7th January 2016, 09:02 PM
Well a gallon of gas would get you from Lands End to John 'o Groats, wouldn't it? ..... *erm

Not quite, even in the Jag. :)

The journey from Land's End to John 'o Groats is 837 miles, but right now you would probably need a boat to do it. :rolleyes: