Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
workingpoor

Tories To Remove Social Housing Quota From New Housing Developments

Recommended Posts

It's easy to see through Cameron's "generation rent to generation buy" centerpiece to be announced today, 200,000 "affordable" starter homes to buy on new developments.

But what's really hidden here is the removal of the quota of social housing that Housebuilders currently have to provide on new developments.

This is all about social cleansing.

More pandering to existing Homeowners, i have heard friends complain about someone "getting a free house on their estate when they had to buy their's"

I wonder if Developers are having trouble selling new builds on new developments because of the madatory social housing quota?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34460822

David Cameron is to announce plans for 200,000 new "affordable" homes to buy in his closing speech to the Conservative conference on Wednesday.

Builders in England will no longer be forced to offer low-cost rented homes in new developments.

Instead they will be able to offer "starter homes" for first-time buyers under 40 as well, at discounted prices.

The PM will tell Tory activists he wants to transform "generation rent" into "generation buy".

Those who buy the new "starter homes" will be prevented from selling them for a quick profit under the new policy, which aides say will provide 200,000 new homes by 2020.

Edited by workingpoor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...what is 'affordable' ..?....do the financial illiterates in government not understand personal debt such as a mortgage needs assessment and 'affordable' in any definition needs income to match.... more so if the lenders do their jobs correctly and build in IR rises to the consideration ...it's all talk without much walk possible....and with over inflated prices already... the risk of a crash is greater ....not a great prospect for FTBs ..'affordable' whatever definition ...or not ... . :rolleyes:

Edited by South Lorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the reasoning is by making houses more unaffordable/increasing the house builders profit, this will mean house-builders will build more ?

Genuine question - I'm not being rhetorical above. It does sound like its trying to answer a 'housing crisis' question rather than a 'housing affordabitliy crisis' question. It also sounds a little like they are pandering to the interests of house-builders rather than the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starter Homes £450k London, £250k outside, not really affordable just another bung to the builders. This 40 age limit gets ever closer yet no building, just talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the age restriction seems odd considering the average age of the FTB. From memory it's 31 on Halifax, and in London well it may not even be a number.

On the target I'll aim for 10000 posts a year from 2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the reasoning is by making houses more unaffordable/increasing the house builders profit, this will mean house-builders will build more ?

Genuine question - I'm not being rhetorical above. It does sound like its trying to answer a 'housing crisis' question rather than a 'housing affordabitliy crisis' question. It also sounds a little like they are pandering to the interests of house-builders rather than the population.

It's more of the same we've had since government first stuck its oar in with council houses.

You pour public money in, you push prices up (except for a lucky few). The developers benefit briefly, but that benefit runs out in a couple of years as the public money feeds through to higher prices on land for building. Then it's back to square one, but at higher prices.

Having said that, in this instance it appears that the red tape rather than simple price issues may have been holding back building. So loosening of that red tape could genuinely serve to improve building.

Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll be forced to emigrate like young Latvians were. Not sure where though. Property is rapidly becoming unaffordable everywhere.

Welcome to the neofeudalism dystopian nightmare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the reasoning is by making houses more unaffordable/increasing the house builders profit, this will mean house-builders will build more ?

Genuine question - I'm not being rhetorical above. It does sound like its trying to answer a 'housing crisis' question rather than a 'housing affordabitliy crisis' question. It also sounds a little like they are pandering to the interests of house-builders rather than the population.

As PM said, the previous rule had the perverse effect of disincentivising building, so should improve things by being cancelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affordable or starter they get bought by BTL and rented to scummers who shit on their environment as they have no stake or enduring reason to build a community. So this is a weak feeble step in the right direction.

If this helps to make the bottom layer of the house of cards collapse the rest will follow and that's what we need - a proper stonking crash. I want my son to be able to afford a house when he grows up and not be a permaslave to a slum lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think he has it mind when he goes on about planning laws, he has it mind of allowing his farming friend to sell off a bit. One doesn't know if members of the rural community are giving him "free range" of their Pot Bellied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affordable or starter they get bought by BTL and rented to scummers who shit on their environment as they have no stake or enduring reason to build a community. So this is a weak feeble step in the right direction.

If this helps to make the bottom layer of the house of cards collapse the rest will follow and that's what we need - a proper stonking crash. I want my son to be able to afford a house when he grows up and not be a permaslave to a slum lord.

^...buying a home 3x first salary and 1x second income or 2.5 joint with 5% to 10% saved deposit, not borrowed (NOT SHARED HOUSING,buying and renting ripp off).....or secured protected renting from a repretable property company.

This big problem is affecting all people of all ages....how many did they say are on council waiting lists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generation rent on Radio 4 about an hour ago. Piss poor radio skills and struggled to get argument across - mainly about lack of social housing.

Then Anne Power from LSE came on and was equally poor - mainly arguing we just need to increase housing density!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more of the same we've had since government first stuck its oar in with council houses.

You pour public money in, you push prices up (except for a lucky few). The developers benefit briefly, but that benefit runs out in a couple of years as the public money feeds through to higher prices on land for building. Then it's back to square one, but at higher prices.

Having said that, in this instance it appears that the red tape rather than simple price issues may have been holding back building. So loosening of that red tape could genuinely serve to improve building.

Well hold on a minute "affordable housing" is not merely 'red tape'. Putting aside how ridiculous it could be, in particular in London, i thought that the whole point of it was because otherwise there would be nothing affordable built for ordinary people to live in ?

If you add this to the attack on Housing Associations, presumably while there will be a marginal improvement, or slowed decline in home-ownership figures by next election (protected by the 5 year moratorium), shouldn't this pile even more upward pressure on hpi ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good thing. The social housing quota was one of Labour's cretinous ideas.

The next step should be enforce a 'use it or lose it' on planning permission. The big builders are hogging land and only leaking small plots out.

5 years then it goes to auction. Fail to sell then its held to be reauctioned later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'affordable' housing quotas were completely useless anyway.

The word 'affordable' was a lie. Those houses were either social housing - with a minuscule chance of ever getting to the top of the housing list. Or they were shared ownership - which amounts to mortgaging yourself forever for a secure 'tenancy' it's almost impossible to escape. More like indentured servitude than a home.

The previous policy was a good soundbite but wasn't doing jack shit to provide people like me with housing.

Really not convinced by the new one, though. What on earth is a 'starter home'? If I'm going to be asked to pay £450,000 for a flat I'm going to want something amazing - but these 'starter homes' are inevitably going to be the same downmarket units (with 'poor doors' and built to a higher density) as the current 'affordable housing'.

What age do I have to be to be entitled to a finisher home or a middler one? And inevitably the 'discount' will be from a fantasy valuation rather than real.

Much rather have the £100k Right to Buy 'voucher' that is shortly going to be given to select potentially Conservative-voting housing association tenants. Or preferably just a housing market actually based on people's ability to budget and save, rather than their ability to borrow ever more irresponsibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good thing. The social housing quota was one of Labour's cretinous ideas.

The next step should be enforce a 'use it or lose it' on planning permission. The big builders are hogging land and only leaking small plots out.

5 years then it goes to auction. Fail to sell then its held to be reauctioned later.

Yes that would be a great idea but why 5 years, why not 3 years? And charge council tax after 1 year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good thing. The social housing quota was one of Labour's cretinous ideas.

The next step should be enforce a 'use it or lose it' on planning permission. The big builders are hogging land and only leaking small plots out.

5 years then it goes to auction. Fail to sell then its held to be reauctioned later.

Sell their hogged/hoarded land at a discount - like they're intending with housing association houses. Right to Buy.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that would be a great idea but why 5 years, why not 3 years? And charge council tax after 1 year.

A nice medium number, not too long, not too short. No science to it at all.

The big builders are hoarding land. The Lr needs updating to you can go and look up how own whats land - for a free, I'd be happy to pay a subs.

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:   54 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.