PunK BeaR

Im surprised stories like this are not more common in the news as people are obsessed with anything related to property. Judging by peoples reaction (it seems to be a popular news item where i work) the paper who got the scoop on this were onto a winner. The parents should come up trumps regardless if the insurers pay out or not as they will get so much cash from the media for selling their story. Would love to see inside the house (looked fine from the outside on the BBC report on the net) no smashed windows and the front garden looked fine. Im sure there will be videos of the party getting uploaded onto youtube from some of the vandals who attended with their video phones.

There are definite spatial variations here. I work in the development industry in scotland and 3/4 bedroom detached houses are still preferred in smaller towns and in the large rural developments (farm redevelopments etc) Many developers still have a fear of not being able to shift flats and semis outwith the larger cities of edinburgh, glasgow and aberdeen. The train of thought seems to be that young trendy people, who are probably more likely to buy flats, congregate in the larger 'happening' cities whereas families want smaller towns, rural environment and detached houses with their own garden (defensible space) etc. This is leading to some terrible high density detached developments with houses situated only a couple of metres apart with postage stamps for back gardens. Any thought about producing interesting urban form, green space etc goes straight out the window (unless the planning dept can force it out of them) as they desperately try to lever as many of these detached boxes into a small area to cover the high land values. Unfortunately, due to the high land values many projects become economically unviable if the numbers are lowered due to planning requirements.

I have read a number of articles in newspapers etc (including a recent one in the Telegraph but i cant find the link) criticizing the UK's land use planning system for being one of the primary factors in the house price boom mostly due to the restricted supply of housing land. I was wondering what peoples views were on this. Planning restrictions controlling the supply of housing land have been in place for a long time and whilst i do not deny that restricted supply of land will invariably push up land prices, these prices would still remain relatively stable in a sustainable housing market. The low interest rates, large mortgages available and the sheer greed of the sheeple have not only increased overall demand but skewed the demographics with more and more people wanting vastly oversized properties for their needs and more single people living on their own. All of this in a relatively short space of time. The criticism is that the unresponsive planning planning system should react quicker to this demand and free up more land for housing....or should it? Housing stock is relatively high and the flow of new property is relatively low meaning prices (should) be relatively stable. For the planning system to have a knee-jerk reaction to the current situation and free up loads more housing land (or worse still, partially deregulating housing development) would result in swathes of crap property blanketing the countryside and further congesting our towns only to see them sitting vacant like some wasteland once the easy money and low interest rates vanish. Housing is unlike other commodities in so far as we all have to live with the repercussions of their construction (as they are around us everyday) for potentially hundreds of years. Once a house is built, it is rarely torn down to put up anything other than more buildings i.e once land is developed it is highly unlikely it will ever become 'green' again. For all the criticisms of the planning system (of which there are many) i do not feel it is a primary contributor to this house price madness (the almost non-existent planning system in US didnt stop the housing bubble occurring) and i do feel it should stand firm until the storm is over and house prices correct.

The best anyone has managed is switching a variable rate onto 5 year fixed rate. The problem is though that most of them have just bought flats as starter homes and will be looking to move in the next few years with impending marriage, kids etc

This is my first post so a big hello to everyone out there. As you may have guessed i am a bear with no intention of buying. 100 grand for a crap flat is not my idea of a good investment. Most of my friends however have jumped onto the property ladder recently and i am constantly hearing them tell me how stupid i am not to buy and how i will be priced out of the market etc etc. They seem to feel that because they have a long term fixed rate mortgage they will be safe during HPC as long as they can hold their job (or their parents will cover it if they should find themselves holding their P45) However, they don't seem to understand the danger of negative equity on a mortgage with a high LTV. As i have never had a mortgage i aint too clued up on the finer details of what happens when the amount owed on the mortgage exceeds the house price so i would be grateful if someone could fully explain it. The way i understand it is you must cover the deficit immediately or face repossession. Also, how does this work with IO mortgages, 125% mortgages and MEW?