No modestly priced housing at Sterling Cables Options

[Exhausted]

In a nutshell, if you were the developer would you want to reduce your profits to provide just a few of affordable homes to please a minority amount of people.

The vultures are already snipping around for their cut. (S106 payment)

Libraries £34,306

Education £389,892

Adult social care £104,941

No doubt there will be more requests. Can you think why the WBC favourite keeps appearing on every development. Libraries. We must by now have books bound in gold the amount of S106 they have been gifted. This may of course be a WBC savings scheme of course.

[Exhausted]

- you weren't even permitted to do internal decoration yourself back then! Imagine, living in a house where the decor is chosen by your favorite Councillors.....

Not true, whilst tenants were not allowed to make structural change or do external decoration, there was a scheme in Newbury where they could get a grant to assist with internal decoration.

[Andy Capp]

If the planning for Sterling Cables (ex site) gets full approval why should the developer have to supply affordable housing?.

As stated earlier in this thread the initial outlay prior to any development is going to be in the region of some 6m +.

This on its own is a substantial amount of money for such a small site and i think that the profit from the proposed development will not be as great as some may think, so why offer affordable properties.

In a nutshell, if you were the developer would you want to reduce your profits to provide just a few of affordable homes to please a minority amount of people.

Exactly the point, and why there needs legislation. Developers would not build any if left to them. Thanks to the shambolic Thatcher idea of selling ageing council homes off way too cheap, and subsequent governments not building replacements, we have a two tier system where there are those who have a home(s) of significant value, and those can cannot even afford the most base level of mortgage in Newbury.

I understand that last year flats sold for an average of £185,000. Terraced properties sold for an average of £223,000, and semi-detached properties fetched £291,000. How can anyone afford that on modal average wages?

[On the edge]

Not true, whilst tenants were not allowed to make structural change or do external decoration, there was a scheme in Newbury where they could get a grant to assist with internal decoration.

So the Director of Housing at Southwark Borough Council was lying when he made a keynote speech at a Housing Conference in 1956 where he suggested that the time had come where it was possible to permit tenants to do internal decorating?

Yes, the rules started to change, but even In your memory, 'tenants were not allowed to make structural change or do external decoration'. Great, the Council chooses the colour of your front door!

[On the edge]

Exactly the point, and why there needs legislation. Developers would not build any if left to them. Thanks to the shambolic Thatcher idea of selling ageing council homes off way too cheap, and subsequent governments not building replacements, we have a two tier system where there are those who have a home(s) of significant value, and those can cannot even afford the most base level of mortgage in Newbury.

I understand that last year flats sold for an average of £185,000. Terraced properties sold for an average of £223,000, and semi-detached properties fetched £291,000. How can anyone afford that on modal average wages?

Quite right, but it's going to take more than what is really the implementation of gesture politics through developers. It won't solve the base issue.

The biggest problem is the scarcity and consequently the cost of land. The other as your rightly highlight, the un affordability of the dwelling itself.

However, as there is a market, some can afford them. If you manage to earn an acceptable wage, it's possible; as financial sector earnings in London amply demonstrate. Then, of course, the changes to pension rules mean that for some, the Bank of Mum and Dad will be able to help. It really won't be flash cars these people spend money on!

So should pressure be put on employers to pay proper wages, and the Government to protect and try to attract the high end salary jobs? Let's also encourage mutual personal finance schemes and dare I say it, promote the idea that you don't actually need to 'own' your home, rather have a solid long term stake in it.

[NWNREADER]

In my view there was nothing wrong with Council Housing. Maybe they lacked design awards, but they were all soundly constructed, thoughtfully located and set in decent plots. (I speak of houses, not the awful high rise blocks and tenements thrown up in particular locations.)
I doubt the Councils were any better or worse than the current array of Housing Associations. For sure there was no profit element to inflate rents. As with any home, some looked after them, some didn't. Some behaved in them, some didn't.
For sure the (majority of) private landlords catered for a separate part of the rental market and did not charge enormous rents for property barely habitable, especially once the rent tribunals etc were fully functioning.
The sale of Council Housing was supposed to reward long-term tenants. The hole in the policy was that the Councils could not re-invest in housing. There was a huge one-time income bubble followed by a total lack of emergency accommodation (which the Councils remain responsible for) forcing displaced families into B&B at huge expense.
I don't know what HAs currently charge, but the rentals I am aware of often exceed the mortgage payment needed to buy, and prevent saving towards the required deposit. Council rents at least avoided that barrier, with tenants looking to buy able to save a bit after the rent was paid. A not-for-profit scheme would reinstate that option. (HAs may be charities, but they are not 'not-for-profit').
As for 'Affordable Housing' - the greatest PC-speak lie I can think of. What is unaffordable?

[On the edge]

That's a view, but it isn't one that many would recognise. In general, the council housing stock was like the curates egg, good in parts. That's an established fact. Some of the prewar ones, even in Newbury were dreadful when built. The experimental concrete constructions of which there were many, were similarly awful. Having said that, those constructed in the late 1940s were superb.

In many parts of the country, particularly where there were big concentrations, estate management and property maintenance was demonstrably appalling Today's housing associations in comparison to local council housing departments are paragons of virtue and best practice. Council housing swamped the private rental sector and bad local council management gave the whole rental approach a bad name.

Council housing started in late Victorian times by a very few enlighten authorities simply to enable slum clearance. The idea took off after WW1 in an attempt to solve a then 'affordable housing' crisis. Sadly, in exactly the same way that developers didn't want 'affordable houses' near their developments, Council housing was concentrated in estates, often of massive proportions. The stigma attached to Council housing hoes back a long way - ever heard of the Cutteslow Wall for instance? Similarly, even round here, Newbury is not immune to the perception created by council housing.

For many years, the statutory rights of council tenants were rather less than those enjoyed in the private rental sector. I well remember a County Court case where a Berkshire Local Council was attempting to evict a tenant because they'd failed to keep their garden in good order; no it wasn't an unholy mess, they just wanted the house.

The sale of council houses, no matter where the revenues went was driven only by political dogma, nothing more, nothing less. To make it work, sales patter was needed as was the massive discounting. That it was a reward for paying the rent is clearly a sales pitch and that is all. A couple of people I know were very very angry about that, having left their 'council' house to buy their own a few years earlier.

The failure to reinvest wasn't anything to do with the sales, given the discounting, local authorities wouldn't have been able to replace like for like anyway. The real reason was the Conservative Governments insistence that housing wasn't a Concil role, no matter what local people felt. Yet another demonstration that power is held by the centre only.

Whatever the answer is, I sincerely hope it does not involve local councils.


With regard to Housing Association rents, I'm not convinced they are higher than mortgage repayments. If they really were, market forces says few would stay in them. Mortgage repayments depend very much on the amount borrowed, not the market rent.

[On the edge]

Just for the record, located in a Surrey Town, I spent the first eighteen years of my life in a Council house, which was new when my parents took the tenancy. They moved out when they were able to buy their own property, which to be frank was older and smaller.

An abiding memory was one of the five yearly inspections, Dad, then a professional glazier, replaced the plain glass in the front door frame with decorative glass. He was 'fined' ten shillings!

[Andy Capp]

As for 'Affordable Housing' - the greatest PC-speak lie I can think of. What is unaffordable?

I doubt that obvious piece of hyperbole is true.

An affordable home will be one that the occupier(s) can afford on low or middle income(s). It includes council and association homes. Post war council homes, I think, were generous and well built.

The big problem we have now is the widening of the wage gap. Professional wages in the Thames Valley have not been suppressed as much as the low skill wages.

Take the average flat price, £180,000.00. Lets' say Mr and Mrs Average have saved or have parents with £40,000.00 spare, so they need a £140,000.00 mortgage. that is over 5 times national mean average wage. I believe before deregulation, the old calculator for affordability was 2.5 annual combined salary.

Association rents are 'competitive', but can differ wildly on the location, but I would expect rents to be between 50% and 80% of private renting, but one thing to bear in mind is that I understand annual association rents always increase above inflation so they are becoming proportionally more expensive as time goes on.




Anyway, this is all a digression on the original point. It has been identified that there is a dearth of modestly priced homes, and to that end, affordable homes need to make up a proportion of new developments, but it seems every time a new development is proposed, the developers 'cannot make it pay'. This happened at Parkway, at the Racecourse, and now at Sterling Cables, albeit, the Sterling Cables plot has a better 'excuse'. It will be interesting to see what the mix will be at Sandleford.

[Simon Kirby]

Exactly the point, and why there needs legislation. Developers would not build any if left to them. Thanks to the shambolic Thatcher idea of selling ageing council homes off way too cheap, and subsequent governments not building replacements, we have a two tier system where there are those who have a home(s) of significant value, and those can cannot even afford the most base level of mortgage in Newbury.

I understand that last year flats sold for an average of £185,000. Terraced properties sold for an average of £223,000, and semi-detached properties fetched £291,000. How can anyone afford that on modal average wages?

"Affordable Housing" isn't necessarily more affordable, it's entirely possible to make the "affordable housing" offering more expensive than other housing in the offering. It's a total piece of nonsense.

What would make housing more affordable is to increase supply, so just enable developers to build more houses, and the more expensive the houses the better! There's only a finite amount of money available to be spent on mortgages and the free-market will set the same average house price whether you build a shed load of low-end houses, or a shed-load of high-end houses, it's just if you build a shed-load of low-end houses then the quality of house that you get for that average house price is lower than if you build a shed-load of high-end houses. So build high-end houses, and improve everyone's quality of life.

House prices would also become more affordable if people were prevented from borrowing more than they can afford, so cap lending multipliers. Everyone ends up with the same house they would have bought, it's just they get it with half the size of mortgage.

S.108 is simply another tax on the poor house-buying schmo. It generates some handy cash for local authorities for them to spend on play-grounds and parks which leaves their council-tax free to spend on the dressing up box and twin-town holidays for their ceremonial mayors, but it's all passed along until it sits on the house buyer's mortgage along with all the other parasitic taxes and charges that our politicians are too involved in to want to do anything about.

So just free-up developers to build the best quality sustainable development they can.

[Exhausted]

So just free-up developers to build the best quality sustainable development they can.

Best solution yet. I concur.

[Andy Capp]

"Affordable Housing" isn't necessarily more affordable, it's entirely possible to make the "affordable housing" offering more expensive than other housing in the offering. It's a total piece of nonsense.

Affordable means just that: a home that is affordable by people on the median wage. that isn't the case at the moment.

What would make housing more affordable is to increase supply, so just enable developers to build more houses, and the more expensive the houses the better! There's only a finite amount of money available to be spent on mortgages and the free-market will set the same average house price whether you build a shed load of low-end houses, or a shed-load of high-end houses, it's just if you build a shed-load of low-end houses then the quality of house that you get for that average house price is lower than if you build a shed-load of high-end houses. So build high-end houses, and improve everyone's quality of life.

Do you have an example of how this has worked elsewhere? Has Newbury seen a surge in supply of cheaper homes since developers have been 'let-off' the affordable homes quota?

House prices would also become more affordable if people were prevented from borrowing more than they can afford, so cap lending multipliers. Everyone ends up with the same house they would have bought, it's just they get it with half the size of mortgage.

So what party is going to put that in their manifesto that people will only be able to buy £100,000.00 homes ?

So just free-up developers to build the best quality sustainable development they can.

Like I said, the differential between professional and unskilled wages is widening. There will be a great number of people that simply won't qualify for a mortgage. How will that help them?

[Exhausted]

Affordable means just that: a home that is affordable by people on the median wage. that isn't the case at the moment.

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

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.

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

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.

[Simon Kirby]

So what party is going to put that in their manifesto that people will only be able to buy £100,000.00 homes ?

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?

[Simon Kirby]

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.

[blackdog]

Affordable means just that: a home that is affordable by people on the median wage.

Where do you get that definition from? Most 'affordable' housing goes to housing associations for the subsidised rental market.

Like I said, the differential between professional and unskilled wages is widening. There will be a great number of people that simply won't qualify for a mortgage. How will that help them?

Simon's theory is that making the housing market a free market (by allowing developers to build pretty much what they want where they want the market) will ensure that quality goes up and prices fall because they will actually have to compete for business for a change. It's a pretty good theory, but has the huge disadvantage of seeing the countryside covered in houses.

[Exhausted]

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.

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

[Lolly]

Where do you get that definition from? Most 'affordable' housing goes to housing associations for the subsidised rental market

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

Social and affordable housing
Affordable housing is social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. From April 2012 affordable housing is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (prior to this the definitions in Planning Policy Statement 3 apply).

Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency.

"Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable).

Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing. Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as ‘low cost market’ housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes."

Simples.....

[Lolly]

Link to source of above definition

https://www.gov.uk/definitions-of-general-housing-terms

[On the edge]

Affordable means just that: a home that is affordable by people on the median wage. that isn't the case at the moment..................

..............Like I said, the differential between professional and unskilled wages is widening. There will be a great number of people that simply won't qualify for a mortgage. How will that help them?

It's more that the 'professional jobs' are rapidly disappearing and not being replaced. We are becoming a low wage economy and that doesn't fit against universal home ownership.