Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
rantnrave

Ukip Unveil Housing Policy

Recommended Posts

Thought this new item on the Property Industry Eye site might generate a little debate over here...

UKIP has unveiled its housing policies which centre round a commitment not to build on the Green Belt.

The party would also bring 700,000 empty properties back into use as affordable housing, and revitalise the Right to Buy scheme.

UKIP would encourage building on brownfield land by transferring the risk of developing on potentially contaminated land from builders to the Government and investors.

It would also eliminate Stamp Duty Land Tax from all properties developed on brownfield sites and remove VAT from all brownfield conversion costs.

The party believes that as many as 2.5m homes could be build on brownfield land.

Yesterday, at the UKIP party conference, housing spokesman Andrew Charalambous said: We would establish the UK Brownfield Agency to compile and collate data for a national brownfield register, provide decontamination assessment grants, and low interest loans for decontamination and land remediation.

We would issue brownfield bonds with the aim of raising £5bn to fuel our brownfield revitalisation programme paving the way for more affordable housing and more home ownership by investing in our countrys most derelict and underused land rather than turning beautiful landscapes into concrete jungles.

UKIP will never concede an inch of the British countryside to residential development.

Politicians do not have the right to deprive future generations from living the marvels of the British countryside to confine their experience of the beauty of Britain to images in photographs and video archives.

Charalamous is a colourful character who describes himself as a tantric master. He is also a landlord, a vegetarian, and owner of a stake in an ecological nightclub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the UK population is stabilised around current levels it could work (if they get a move on) and they're talking about 2.5 million new homes plus the 0.7 million of the currently empty properties which puts Millband's 0.5 million new homes by 2025 in perspective.

If the population isn't stabilised then once the brownfield sites have been built on then they'll have to think again.

The LibLabCon said they were going to use brownfield sites decades ago but their plan these days seems to be just not to build much.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far its actually the best offering from a mainstream party and I could live with the green field embargo if combined with a much stricter immigration regime.

Edited by goldbug9999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKIP has unveiled its housing policies which centre round a commitment not to build on the Green Belt.

No sh1t. For the NIMBY party it's still 1955 and forever shall be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ********, that's what it is.

A recipe for villages with declining amenities as the populations thins, or people's location choices limited to sites where the jobs used to be, and the resultant travel chaos as people commute to where the work really is.

Brownfield sites in cities have obvious appeal, but a blanket policy to restrict it to Brownfield nationwide is crazy.

It completely ignores the often huge biodiversity on Brownfield land to boot.

I can just see the nimbies backing down the minute they realize it's a brownfield site too...

Besides, a parish council near me is desperate for new homes in the village as the shop, school and pub progressively closed as the population has aged and not been rejuvenated. Now it apparently resembles a retirement home, with its frail population increasingly isolated. Why would you choose to move there? The costs of living in the countryside are higher so to have a supply ban is suicide imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the UK population is stabilised around current levels it could work (if they get a move on) and they're talking about 2.5 million new homes which puts Millband's 0.5 million new homes by 2025 in perspective.

If the population isn't stabilised then once the brownfield sites have been built on then they'll have to think again.

The LibLabCon said they were going to use brownfield sites decades ago but their plan these days seems to be just not to build much.

Does that not indicate to you that the demand isn`t really there? The millions and millions don`t really exist in the way they are portrayed, as waiting somewhere just off the coast for their accommodation to be built? Yes, there are too many foreign workers taking low level jobs that Brits could do, but then there are too many Brits who prefer the government teat thanks to Tony and Co., but that is about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ********, that's what it is.

A recipe for villages with declining amenities as the populations thins, or people's location choices limited to sites where the jobs used to be, and the resultant travel chaos as people commute to where the work really is.

Brownfield sites in cities have obvious appeal, but a blanket policy to restrict it to Brownfield nationwide is crazy.

It completely ignores the often huge biodiversity on Brownfield land to boot.

I can just see the nimbies backing down the minute they realize it's a brownfield site too...

Besides, a parish council near me is desperate for new homes in the village as the shop, school and pub progressively closed as the population has aged and not been rejuvenated. Now it apparently resembles a retirement home, with its frail population increasingly isolated. Why would you choose to move there? The costs of living in the countryside are higher so to have a supply ban is suicide imo.

Why do you need new homes if the village is dying? Dropping some cheap newbuilds on the outskirts is not going to make it any more appealing. Young people don`t want to live in the country because it is boring that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you need new homes if the village is dying? Dropping some cheap newbuilds on the outskirts is not going to make it any more appealing. Young people don`t want to live in the country because it is boring that's all.

No it is not......imo villages require a few more homes and people, more space to do that, better connections, keeps the pubs and shops ticking over....nowadays communication means you can be any place,anywhere....don't think nothing is going on just because you can't see it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we either reduce the numbers coming into the country each year, or expand the green belt, or both. I prefer both, but at least UKIP are tackling one. The other parties have, so far, done neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you need new homes if the village is dying? Dropping some cheap newbuilds on the outskirts is not going to make it any more appealing. Young people don`t want to live in the country because it is boring that's all.

I don't think that flies, despite sharing your view on the monotony of village life. It ain't for me.

However, some people will want to move there if the price is right and amenities are present. If you have children and there's no school, it might be a non starter. The business proposition for a local shop is questionable if the population consists of 1 or 2 oldies in houses that once had three, four or more occupants. It's not good for social cohesion either imo.

Seems like we are setting up the slums of the future, surrounded by ghost towns. The Lake District has plenty of such places, although holiday homes are a big issue there of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we either reduce the numbers coming into the country each year, or expand the green belt, or both. I prefer both, but at least UKIP are tackling one. The other parties have, so far, done neither.

Does it not seem strange to you that we have been having the "reduce numbers V more building" conversation for a LONG time, but there hasn`t really been any building? I don`t believe the "shortage of houses" mantra I`m afraid, there is some overcrowding in London, yes, but there is also a ton of empty property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as the other parties then.

Theres a shocker.

4 parties offering the same damn policy. Record numbers priced out. There must be some votes in appealing to the 30% or so who have no chance of owning.

That said, most my friends, now in their 30s sharing houses, don't actually see themselves as victims. Its like they've been broken and just accept things. A lot of things I don't like about the boomer generation. But they weren't so damn apathetic as the post 1980 generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't build on the countryside but increase council tax by a million percent on any nimby who opposes development to pay for building on brownfield sites or not at all (i.e. housing benefit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as the other parties then.

Theres a shocker.

4 parties offering the same damn policy. Record numbers priced out. There must be some votes in appealing to the 30% or so who have no chance of owning.

That said, most my friends, now in their 30s sharing houses, don't actually see themselves as victims. Its like they've been broken and just accept things. A lot of things I don't like about the boomer generation. But they weren't so damn apathetic as the post 1980 generation.

I blame all the lithium flouride in the water supply :lol:. Melting the brains of the young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that not indicate to you that the demand isn`t really there? The millions and millions don`t really exist in the way they are portrayed, as waiting somewhere just off the coast for their accommodation to be built? Yes, there are too many foreign workers taking low level jobs that Brits could do, but then there are too many Brits who prefer the government teat thanks to Tony and Co., but that is about it?

The demand is there if only because the population is increasing (according to official figures) and rapidly and the level of empty properties (say about 700,000) seems static and by definition not being occupied (so they're currently out of the equation). Currently people are making do with the numbers already built which presumably must mean they're living in more congested conditions at least in some areas. In London and the SE lots are making do in shed type properties at the bottom of some people's gardens.

Maybe the low level of building is more to do with local concerns with local MPs and councillors wanting to be re-elected and it also helps to some extent to boost house prices (accepted that out of control credit and government intervention is the main reason for crazy house prices).

I don't know about the millions waiting somewhere off the coast (maybe that could be waiting either in France or just waiting at their home overseas?) but currently since 2012 net migration is on a strong upward trend and at an average rate per annum similar to NuLbour's time so housing the increase in population for all reasons has to be taken into account somehow.

As for taking jobs just the sheer numbers means that is inevitable and equally inevitably there will be numbers of Brits who as a consequence are on benefits and some will even be content with that. However lots of them would have been working in the past and a lot of them are making do on zero hour contracts as there appears to be a surfeit of that type of worker (who might well have degrees from some UK college or University).

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I sound spoilt but I don't want to live in some mass developer build house on an ex-brownfield site.

Why would an additional house for my family "destroy the countryside" when the existing houses didn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand people not wanting large estates built in the middle of farmland, but why the blanket ban on self builders?

As the number of useable brownfield sites collapses the price of residential land goes up exponentially!

Self builds at £1m per acre are now for the privileged.

IMO all this brownfield nonsense is more about preserving wealth in the hands of those that have it, than not wanting to build in the countryside.

Why is it that every other country in Europe sees fit to allow people to build their homes in the countryside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i want to know is when all the brownfield sites have been built upon what kind of land are the new industrial areas going to be built upon.

Taxing B2L would be the best idea to correct the housing market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The demand is there if only because the population is increasing (according to official figures) and rapidly and the level of empty properties (say about 700,000) seems static and by definition not being occupied (so they're currently out of the equation). Currently people are making do with the numbers already built which presumably must mean they're living in more congested conditions at least in some areas. In London and the SE lots are making do in shed type properties at the bottom of some people's gardens.

Maybe the low level of building is more to do with local concerns with local MPs and councillors wanting to be re-elected and it also helps to some extent to boost house prices (accepted that out of control credit and government intervention is the main reason for crazy house prices).

I don't know about the millions waiting somewhere off the coast (maybe that could be waiting either in France or just waiting at their home overseas?) but currently since 2012 net migration is on a strong upward trend and at an average rate per annum similar to NuLbour's time so housing the increase in population for all reasons has to be taken into account somehow.

As for taking jobs just the sheer numbers means that is inevitable and equally inevitably there will be numbers of Brits who as a consequence are on benefits and some will even be content with that. However lots of them would have been working in the past and a lot of them are making do on zero hour contracts as there appears to be a surfeit of that type of worker (who might well have degrees from some UK college or University).

My basic point is that if there were vast numbers, hundreds of thousands, of people with the right to be here and nowhere to live there would be massive social unrest, and then building in quick order. They won`t build because they know the market will crash even harder if they do. They wanted people to keep borrowing top whack so the builders could make massive profits, more building more borrowing as Hamish says, but it hasn`t played out, the Ponzi is broken, going on about the "hordes of immigrants" just keeps Mr and Mrs Muppet from defaulting because they will live in hope of a greater fool picking up their debt some day. People in sheds are immigrant workers who are working for cash and are being exploited by greedy landlords IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you need new homes if the village is dying? Dropping some cheap newbuilds on the outskirts is not going to make it any more appealing. Young people don`t want to live in the country because it is boring that's all.

10 mile from any city in the UK is countryside, i think youll find most would take an affordable home in such far out location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A major development in US manufacturing over the last couple of years has been 'insourcing'. Rises in the cost of fuel and labour costs in Asia have made it more cost-effective to manufacture goods in the US for the domestic market, decades after they were outsourced. It's not inconceivable the same could happen in the UK - we may need those brown field sites yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it not seem strange to you that we have been having the "reduce numbers V more building" conversation for a LONG time, but there hasn`t really been any building? I don`t believe the "shortage of houses" mantra I`m afraid, there is some overcrowding in London, yes, but there is also a ton of empty property.

OK then... perhaps it's fairer to say there is a shortage of genuinely affordable housing. Maybe not in Edinburgh, but certainly it becomes increasingly true the further south you go.

And as for London, it's not merely a question of overcrowding. You're paying £800 or more a month for a room, in many cases! So in a 4 bedroom house, that is £3,200 in rent, where perhaps 20 years ago it might have been rented out to one family at much less in real terms. So families lose out, and people end up paying rent for basically a room!

The problem is high house prices, but I think part of the contributing problem to high house prices is the sheer number of people we keep stuffing into the same % of land. As the immigration figures show, we have jumped from a few tens of thousands each year throughout the last century, to over 200,000 more NET immigrants every year in the 2000's, and that's on top of the 200,000 or so NET additional people who are born in this country (i.e. the difference between births and deaths).

Whether there is a "shortage" of houses or not, these people have to live somewhere. Where are they living? They are being stuffed into the same % of land... in smaller properties, or into chopped up houses, or living with their parents for longer, in ever-more crowded cities.

Yes, we know the solution is lower house prices. But I don't think that's going to happen significantly, until we also stop pumping hundreds of thousands of new people into the same % of land every year. These people may not be buying up £500k properties in London, but they are living somewhere... and so are probably paying rent (x5 per property) to a landlord who can then afford to buy up that £500k property.

Look at the figures. House prices began to soar at about the same time as immigration soared. I have no proof of correlation, but it's also an amazing coincidence if there isn't any. It can't just be the economy, because our economy tanked from 2008 onwards, and yet immigration only dropped a bit. House prices also dropped a bit, and then continued upwards.

So I'd say that house prices vs immigration figures seem a lot more correlated than house prices v the economy, or house prices v interest rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 mile from any city in the UK is countryside, i think youll find most would take an affordable home in such far out location.

OK then... perhaps it's fairer to say there is a shortage of genuinely affordable housing. Maybe not in Edinburgh, but certainly it becomes increasingly true the further south you go.

And as for London, it's not merely a question of overcrowding. You're paying £800 or more a month for a room, in many cases! So in a 4 bedroom house, that is £3,200 in rent, where perhaps 20 years ago it might have been rented out to one family at much less in real terms. So families lose out, and people end up paying rent for basically a room!

The problem is high house prices, but I think part of the contributing problem to high house prices is the sheer number of people we keep stuffing into the same % of land. As the immigration figures show, we have jumped from a few tens of thousands each year throughout the last century, to over 200,000 more NET immigrants every year in the 2000's, and that's on top of the 200,000 or so NET additional people who are born in this country (i.e. the difference between births and deaths).

Whether there is a "shortage" of houses or not, these people have to live somewhere. Where are they living? They are being stuffed into the same % of land... in smaller properties, or into chopped up houses, or living with their parents for longer, in ever-more crowded cities.

Yes, we know the solution is lower house prices. But I don't think that's going to happen significantly, until we also stop pumping hundreds of thousands of new people into the same % of land every year. These people may not be buying up £500k properties in London, but they are living somewhere... and so are probably paying rent (x5 per property) to a landlord who can then afford to buy up that £500k property.

Look at the figures. House prices began to soar at about the same time as immigration soared. I have no proof of correlation, but it's also an amazing coincidence if there isn't any. It can't just be the economy, because our economy tanked from 2008 onwards, and yet immigration only dropped a bit. House prices also dropped a bit, and then continued upwards.

So I'd say that house prices vs immigration figures seem a lot more correlated than house prices v the economy, or house prices v interest rates.

The main correlation is with the massive wave of global credit, the great experiment on the masses, which failed and won`t be repeated in our lifetimes on that scale. The landlord with 12 people in his house probably bought years ago, it is not the amount of people that fuelled this bubble, it is cheap credit and a sentiment that said "Get on the ladder or forever miss out!" If this was about the amount of people in the country there would be no need for all the desperate props, no need for Clown Boris to wave a brick about at the Tory conference? The amount of people is not the main thing, it is the amount that those people can spend/borrow that counts.

Edited by dances with sheeple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the UK population is stabilised around current levels it could work (if they get a move on) and they're talking about 2.5 million new homes plus the 0.7 million of the currently empty properties which puts Millband's 0.5 million new homes by 2025 in perspective.

Won't happen though will it? Even if net migration was bought down to zero the population would still be growing.

Birth rate - 12.22 births/1,000 population (2014 est.)

Death rate - 9.34 deaths/1,000 population (2014 est.)

Population is rising at roughly 190,000 a year just because of this.

So what's it to be? Abortion, Euthanasia or both? I'm being a bit flippant but it's an important point, as healthcare gets better and better the death rate goes down (as it has done for over 100 years - excluding wars/flu epidemics) and life expectancy improves. Some predictions show average life expectancy in the UK will be around 87 by 2030.

Promises are easy for politicians to make when not in power (as the LibDems showed so well). That's why "scaremongers" like myself have to point out how the sums don't work out.

Unless of course UKIP's plan is to scare away the "educated liberal elite".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   208 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.