No modestly priced housing at Sterling Cables Options

[Andy Capp]

I would be interested in your thoughts about what an affordable home is in terms of a development.

I grew up in a council house and in a council estate. It seems that estate now has many 'valuable' homes and command a comparable price with the local average even with only modest improvements.

A builder builds 50 homes and 5 are to be affordable. How does he market the 5 affordable. Are they to be purchased by a Housing association at discount and if so, how will that impact on the profitability of the 50 home development. Should he offer them at discount to the first 5 buyers who turn up with suitable mortgage in place. Whatever the result the next 45 homes will have to be more expensive to compensate.

Compensate what? Why do they have to be more expensive.

What rules should there be to ensure that when the affordable buyer decides to sell, that home stays within the affordable range.

I dunno, I don't make the rules. My OP was to complain that the local councils are failing to implement the affordable element policy.

Every planning application of any substance gets saddled with all sorts of demands. Each one of these adds to the final sale price. Where does it end.

It doesn't seem to stop homes at that end of the market getting sold, nor stem the appetite of the developer to develop, so I'm left thinking: so what?

[Exhausted]

I think he may have got it from Wikipedia ( I saw it whilst looking up the government definition which is somewhat longer....)

That government definition is typical politician speak. Totally meaningless, open to interpretation and doesn't say how the discount is achieved. Affordable housing, a couple of words that allow the council to extract a premium from the developer if he can't deliver or perhaps to use the ratepayers money to subsidise them.

Either way, it's about time that the politicians who generate these requirements moved into the real world. Any squeeze on a developer adds to the final price of a standard home which inflates the market. In general, the quality of build today is high as a developer knows that he has to achieve a standard compatible with modern living standards. The market place is competitive and sale of newbuild depends on quality. With modern building standards, the cost of build is high. Materials are expensive and land is expensive. Believe it or not, the margins can get very tight.

[Andy Capp]

And if people were only able to afford £100,000, just how many properties do you suppose would be up on the market for £450,000?

Oh wait, I've an idea, how about a help-to-buy scheme where the state puts in the other £350,000, that will let everyone buy £450,000 homes with £100,000 mortgages, I don't know what no one thought of that before, that's a great idea.

Finding it hard to ignore the churlish tone in your reply, but perhaps you would answer my question?

[Simon Kirby]

It's a pretty good theory, but has the huge disadvantage of seeing the countryside covered in houses.

I think that deserves some looking at. Let me nail this for starters: I'm not talking about building in the countryside, because building in the countryside isn't sustainable, and I'm only advocating a free-for-all of sustainable development. OK, so if you wanted to build a sustainable new town garden city then that would likely be in the countryside, but I'm guessing that most development will need to be on the outskirts of towns so that it concentrates social resources like jobs, shops, and leisure, and minimises travel. It'll be greenfield, but hardly a "countryside covered in houses".

And as I've argued before, I don't accept the implied premise of countryside-good-housing-estate-bad. Sure, a housing estate with poor quality design, cheap materials, unimaginative generic design, and poorly planned public space is a horror, but so too is the "countryside" - have you been to Norfolk and Lincolnshire? But take a trip to any number of towns in the Cotswolds say, and see how enjoyable the built environment can be.

[Simon Kirby]

I like that scheme and as a taxpayer, I hope Andy does as well.

[Andy Capp]

That government definition is typical politician speak. Totally meaningless, open to interpretation and doesn't say how the discount is achieved. Affordable housing, a couple of words that allow the council to extract a premium from the developer if he can't deliver or perhaps to use the ratepayers money to subsidise them.

Either way, it's about time that the politicians who generate these requirements moved into the real world. Any squeeze on a developer adds to the final price of a standard home which inflates the market. In general, the quality of build today is high as a developer knows that he has to achieve a standard compatible with modern living standards. The market place is competitive and sale of newbuild depends on quality. With modern building standards, the cost of build is high. Materials are expensive and land is expensive. Believe it or not, the margins can get very tight.

Land is only expensive in accordance to the expected usage; however, if AH is a meaningless concept, how come developers have difficulty in building one? Where's the evidence what you say is true? If I pass the average estate agent, the vast majority of homes for sell are at a price beyond the average wage earners persons pocket.

[Exhausted]

I grew up in a council house and in a council estate. It seems that estate now has many 'valuable' homes and command a comparable price with the local average even with only modest improvements.

Not sure what your point is except that these original affordable homes are no longer affordable homes.

Compensate what? Why do they have to be more expensive.

The developer is entitled to a profit from his efforts as most businesses strive for this objective

I dunno, I don't make the rules. My OP was to complain that the local councils are failing to implement the affordable element policy. It doesn't seem to stop homes at that end of the market getting sold, nor stem the appetite of the developer to develop, so I'm left thinking: so what?

So, if you don't know, how can a council load the burden onto the developer. Properties sell when the quality is right and the price is right. The developer will aim at a sale to make a profit from his labours or investment if you like. Whilst you don't make the rules, what would you suggest is best option then.

[Exhausted]

Land is only expensive in accordance to the expected usage; however, if AH is a meaningless concept, how come developers have difficulty in building one? Where's the evidence what you say is true? If I pass the average estate agent, the vast majority of homes for sell are at a price beyond the average wage earners persons pocket.

Like I said... Any squeeze on a developer adds to the final price of a standard home which inflates the market. In general, the quality of build today is high as a developer knows that he has to achieve a standard compatible with modern living standards. The market place is competitive and sale of newbuild depends on quality. With modern building standards, the cost of build is high. Materials are expensive and land is expensive. Believe it or not, the margins can get very tight.

[Andy Capp]

I like that scheme and as a taxpayer, I hope Andy does as well.

While I can afford it, I have no problem paying into a social fund. It seems to me, as the country slowly takes up ownership of 'our land' the more b*****d selfish people are getting. Building luxury homes will just mean more luxury homes for those that can afford it. As soon as the luxury home market gets saturated, they will just stop building.

[Exhausted]

While I can afford it, I have no problem paying into a social fund. It seems to me, as the country slowly takes up ownership of 'our land' the more b*****d selfish people are getting. Building luxury homes will just mean more luxury homes for those that can afford it. As soon as the luxury home market gets saturated, they will just stop building.

Yes right, you are prepared to pay tax to home the populace who can't afford to buy.

As far as your second point, if the high value market place gets saturated, perhaps that might be the catalyst for estates where the homes are all affordable. A bit like the council housing we used to have and served us well until it was moved into private ownership and those owners took their profit and ran

[Andy Capp]

So, if you don't know, how can a council load the burden onto the developer. Properties sell when the quality is right and the price is right. The developer will aim at a sale to make a profit from his labours or investment if you like. Whilst you don't make the rules, what would you suggest is best option then.

Can you or your capitalist buddy show examples of where a free housing market works and frees-up homes affordable for the low paid? At the moment whimsical ideas about mass devaluation of homes sounds good, it ain't going to happen anytime soon, but mandatory affordable homes are obtainable now.

It's a knackered job, we have a two tier country: those with homes (the majority), and those who don't, and such is the government's desperate attempt to keep the housing market buoyant, we have to suffer near 0% interest rates.

Then only thing i can think of that might make a difference is if we make affordable dwellings less expensive, perhaps reduce taxation, and encourage apprenticeships in building so that affordable homes are built and supervised by developers using those people.

[Exhausted]

Then only thing i can think of that might make a difference is if we make affordable dwellings less expensive, perhaps reduce taxation, and encourage apprenticeships in building so that affordable homes are built and supervised by developers using those people.

That sounds to me like you are advocating employing unskilled cheap labour and call them apprentices.

[Andy Capp]

That sounds to me like you are advocating employing unskilled cheap labour and call them apprentices.

That sounds to me like a strawman fallacy.

[NWNREADER]

The stigma attached to Council housing hoes back a long way - ever heard of the Cutteslow Wall for instance?

Indeed I have, as I was a 'local' at the time and had school friends who had lived both sides..... It was built by the developer to 'protect' his investment.
There are many walled estates being built now........ For top-end occupants.

[nerc]

Then only thing i can think of that might make a difference is if we make affordable dwellings less expensive, perhaps reduce taxation, and encourage apprenticeships in building so that affordable homes are built and supervised by developers using those people.

So your idea is to employ "cheap Labour", surely this then goes against your normal comments about low wages.

An apprentice is usually on low wages and would not be able to afford to buy their own home.

[On the edge]

Indeed I have, as I was a 'local' at the time and had school friends who had lived both sides..... It was built by the developer to 'protect' his investment.
There are many walled estates being built now........ For top-end occupants.

If that was the only reason, the wall would have been down years earliehouses, r and there would have been no high court actions. The developer had made his money, it was the residents in the private houses who wanted 'to protect' their investment!! And these houses were standard 1930s semis. The fact remains, council housing carried a stygma.

Surely, rather than going for cheap housing, should we not be going for better wages? Do we really want to perpetuate a two tier society, where we'd rather subsidise 'the poor'? Lets face it, whatever we might think of house prices locally, the number of apparently successful estate agents round here suggests there must be a market; people are buying them.

[Exhausted]

Surely, rather than going for cheap housing, should we not be going for better wages? Do we really want to perpetuate a two tier society, where we'd rather subsidise 'the poor'?

Better wages might be an answer but there will always be differentials which are down to the skill levels attained by the worker. If the shelf stacker's wages are elevated to the current level of a skilled technician, he/she will want a higher wage, then the manager will want his wages elevated and then of course to maintain the differential the solicitors will want more income.

So, what will happen, products from the businesses staffed by the wage earners on elevated salaries will become too expensive to sell, our exports will suffer, our imports of luxury goods will increase and we will spiral towards massive unemployment and then those displaced workers will need to be supported by what will quickly become a 'broke' state.

I think that it's about right as we are but if there is a social need, then we need to try to fill it but there needs to be a balance between those who have genuine housing needs and the feckless individuals who lean on the system looking for free accommodation subsidised by the ratepayers.

There will always be people who want to get rich quick or wish to add to their overseas funds. Land sale is one area and one cannot help but look at the owners of fields south of Newbury who must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of changing the use of their farmland to a site for housing development.

[Lolly]

There will always be people who want to get rich quick or wish to add to their overseas funds. Land sale is one area and one cannot help but look at the owners of fields south of Newbury who must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of changing the use of their farmland to a site for housing development.

This is the crux of the matter. Developers/speculators who have bought up agricultural land, slightly inflated for 'hope' value, and are sufficiently wealthy to hold on to it long term until they can persuade government/local authorities/ planners that there are insufficient brownfield sites to meet housing need.

[Lolly]

That government definition is typical politician speak. Totally meaningless, open to interpretation and doesn't say how the discount is achieved. Affordable housing, a couple of words that allow the council to extract a premium from the developer if he can't deliver or perhaps to use the ratepayers money to subsidise them.

Either way, it's about time that the politicians who generate these requirements moved into the real world. Any squeeze on a developer adds to the final price of a standard home which inflates the market. In general, the quality of build today is high as a developer knows that he has to achieve a standard compatible with modern living standards. The market place is competitive and sale of newbuild depends on quality. With modern building standards, the cost of build is high. Materials are expensive and land is expensive. Believe it or not, the margins can get very tight.

Don't disagree with you apart from the fact that I think the government definition is worse than meaningless - it is misleading. A lot of people seem to think that "affordable housing" in the context of S106 is modestly priced housing ( as per the OP) That is not the case - in fact it is another name for social housing ( mostly socially rented via Housing Associations) and the eligibility criteria seem pretty restrictive. I think ( but am willing to stand corrected) that one of the reasons for shortages in HA "affordable" properties is that tenancies ( certainly old tenancies) didn't take account of changing circumstances ie increases in income, dependant children leaving home etc. Thus you have an older generation of single/double occupancy of family houses and growing families with young children cramped into one or two bedroom flats.

[blackdog]

Land sale is one area and one cannot help but look at the owners of fields south of Newbury who must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of changing the use of their farmland to a site for housing development.

Not just the south of Newbury - pretty much every field adjoining Newbury has been proposed for housing development under WBCs recent call for sites to fill a shortfall in their housing target.