Housing crisis deepens, All mouth and no trousers from Cameron, Benyon and Libdems Options

[Sherlock]

Coalition could preside over lowest level of house building since the 1920s

What news on Sandelford?

We seriously need new housing in this area, as does the rest of the country. But is spite of endless verbiage from this government nothing seems to be happening at Sandelford or elsewhere. Could it be that they're keener on keeping house prices and rents high than actually doing anything about this?

[Andy Capp]

I think we are now paying the penalty for failing to keep a correlation between house prices and wages. Exacerbated by the clamour for home ownership kick-started by the over cheap sell-off in the early 80s.

[NWNREADER]

What went wrong with the council house sale was the policy for Housing Associations to take on the role. Councils who spent the income from sales on new houses would've gifted that money to the Associations. The expectation the Associations would buy in to new developments was dependant upon developers actually building, Economy slows, development slows, Housing Associations have no access to stock (and prices move away from first time buyers).
I think Chauncey Gardner spoke more truth than he realised......

[lordtup]

There was an associated item on BBC breakfast this morning saying that there are 700,000 empty properties in England alone ,though most seem to be in the NW . Now this is totally unacceptable when we appear to have such a housing shortfall .
We have become so reliant on the balance sheet as the director of development that our position as a welfare state comes under close scrutiny .
The problem is very real, the solution is not as difficult as everyone makes out . Let us hope our beloved leaders remove their heads from their proverbial rear ends and starts joining the dots .

No I can't see it happening either .

[Jayjay]

What went wrong with the council house sale was the policy for Housing Associations to take on the role. Councils who spent the income from sales on new houses would've gifted that money to the Associations. The expectation the Associations would buy in to new developments was dependant upon developers actually building, Economy slows, development slows, Housing Associations have no access to stock (and prices move away from first time buyers).
I think Chauncey Gardner spoke more truth than he realised......

The council did not receive the money from Thatchers sell off of council property. The profits went into government coffers to make the books look good and helped her get re-elected.

[motormad]

I assume all of you have your own houses, right?
Why not leave the moaning to those of us who have to rent 'cause there are no decent homes for us youngens.

Or you can move to the NW.
Personally I'd rather be homeless than go down tut street in tut morning.

[Andy Capp]

I assume all of you have your own houses, right?
Why not leave the moaning to those of us who have to rent 'cause there are no decent homes for us youngens.

Or you can move to the NW.
Personally I'd rather be homeless than go down tut street in tut morning.

You have your youth, right? Why not leave the moaning to us oldn's!

[Simon Kirby]

Coalition could preside over lowest level of house building since the 1920s

What news on Sandelford?

We seriously need new housing in this area, as does the rest of the country. But is spite of endless verbiage from this government nothing seems to be happening at Sandelford or elsewhere. Could it be that they're keener on keeping house prices and rents high than actually doing anything about this?

Local politicos, both lib-dem and tory, just want to please their nimby electorate; solving the housing crisis just doesn't come into it.

Sandleford is very awkward for the local tories who are reactionary by instinct and who, but for their party loyalty, would be campaigning hard against development in their neighbourhood. Their children have already left home and set up comfortable middle-class homes so the housing crisis is not something that bothers them, but what does irk and rankle is other people, and the prospect of a whole hateful estate of other people right in their back yard must seem intolerable to them.

It's much the same for the lib-dems, their opposition to Sandleford isn't born out of any political conviction that the houses would be better built somewhere else, they're just milking the situation for the nimby vote.

Like everything this government promised, the Big-Society-esque relaxation of planning control has failed to materialize, despite the guff about a presumption in favour of sustainable development, so the planning treacle continues to drag at the progress of the development, and by the time the houses are built the Country Park that we were promised will turn out to be nothing more than a patch of scrub land, so I'm not too fussed if it never happens either.

[Andy Capp]

The biggest problem I see is that no party is going to actively seek policies that devalue house prices, yet that is what we, in part, need. That or more 'social housing'. Wages and the prospect for wages are falling, at the same time house prices are more or less static and the chances for a first time buyer getting a mortgage is small.

Not good.

[blackdog]

Coalition could preside over lowest level of house building since the 1920s

What news on Sandelford?

We seriously need new housing in this area, as does the rest of the country. But is spite of endless verbiage from this government nothing seems to be happening at Sandelford or elsewhere. Could it be that they're keener on keeping house prices and rents high than actually doing anything about this?

Nothing is happening because no one is buying - developers can't afford to build houses that no one will buy. If they price houses to sell there is no profit. As for Sandleford - even if the housing market was booming it would take a few years to raise the cash, put the plans together, jump through the planning hoops etc. The Racecourse development was approved a couple of years ago - not one of the 1500 homes has been started yet.

The politicians tinker with the rules, but it is profit that gets houses built.

[Biker1]

We seriously need new housing in this area, as does the rest of the country.

Perhaps we should look at the reasons why we continually need to build more and more houses on greenfield rather than just doing it indefinitely?
Look at the cause rather than the effect and maybe deal with that?

[Exhausted]

Perhaps we should look at the reasons why we continually need to build more and more houses on greenfield rather than just doing it indefinitely?
Look at the cause rather than the effect and maybe deal with that?

There are three town development areas where the council planners seem to be dragging things out and it can only be guesswork as to why. The first was the proposal for work to live housing on the old Travis Perkins site in Mill Lane. Thrown out for the flimsiest of reasons and the developer has now walked away. The old Sterling Estate has been pending a decision for a year now on a new application. An opportunity for local low cost apartments and also, in the process, to clean up a badly contaminated ground area. The third which has been highlighted in this week's NWN, the Faraday Road development which also includes housing. This has now passed forty weeks since the application renewal was registered.

From the Newbury Weekly News perspective, they appear to not know their Faraday Road from their Parkway. The header claims the development application is for the latter. Strange mistake considering that they are based in Faraday Road.

[JeffG]

Perhaps we should look at the reasons why we continually need to build more and more houses on greenfield rather than just doing it indefinitely?
Look at the cause rather than the effect and maybe deal with that?

As I understand it, the need for more housing is mainly due to the fact that the number of single person households has increased dramatically. (Divorce seems to be a normal way of life these days, plus people are living longer.)

[Jayjay]

As I understand it, the need for more housing is mainly due to the fact that the number of single person households has increased dramatically. (Divorce seems to be a normal way of life these days, plus people are living longer.)

The forecast is for 10's of thousands of Bulgarians/Romanians to enter the UK this year, these will all need to housing.

[Biker1]

The forecast is for 10's of thousands of Bulgarians/Romanians to enter the UK this year, these will all need to housing.

Can they afford it when we have so many homeless on the streets already?

[John C]

Can they afford it when we have so many homeless on the streets already?

Off course they can, they would take priority over our homeless, and get benefits as soon as they step foot in this country.

[JeffG]

Off course they can, they would take priority over our homeless, and get benefits as soon as they step foot in this country.

Your source for this useful information?

[dannyboy]

Your source for this useful information?

Nick Griffin?

[Penelope]

Your source for this useful information?

History.

[Blake]

My bugbear is that far too many people want homes in the already overpopulated South East whilst, as mentioned, there are swathes of unoccupied homes and streets in some parts of the country. Equally, I hear that there are 700,000 unoccupied homes in Spain!

We should encourage development and investment in areas outside the South East where land prices are cheaper. We could also encourage more people to retire or to launch new lives in Spain too. It's a win-win opportunity.