How many new homes are really needed?
Discussion
We live in a village in Norfolk. A local meeting had a representative from North Norfolk District Council in attendance - He never did answer the question "are you here in an official capacity?"
The local plan said over 600 people expressed a preference to live in our village - that would more than double the population in our village. When the 'rep' was asked about this high figure he agreed it did sound unlikely, and he didn't know where the figures had come from. Everyone in the meeting said it was laughable, especially as 11 properties advertised for over a year hadn't had buyers! - The survey must have asked people in a crowded Town if they'd like to live in a small sleepy village! (loaded question?).
The local (online) plan also had other small villages with similar unlikely numbers, and he said he would investigate.
At the next meeting he said he'd asked his colleagues, and it took some searching. It was because anyone on the housing list is given a list of local villages and Towns - they then state where they would like to live. If the were happy to live in village A, they are counted for it, similarly if they like village B they are on that list as well. There upshot of this (it would seem) is their 'preference' counts in ALL THE VILLAGES & TOWNS on their list! There was no 'negative' ie 'No we don't want to live there' count. It seemed acceptable to him (and presumably his colleagues), that the same people are counted as wanting to live in multiple villages. The fact he didn't readily know, and it took some effort to establish, suggests nobody (or not many) are sufficiently aware of what's happening.
Maybe, just maybe, the amount of 'extra houses we need' has been overstated - perhaps by a factor of 20x ? Who knows?
Is this (overcounting) happening for the whole of the UK, or only for North Norfolk?
Statistics gone mad - any O Level(oops showing my age) GCSE student wouldn't make that mistake.
The local plan said over 600 people expressed a preference to live in our village - that would more than double the population in our village. When the 'rep' was asked about this high figure he agreed it did sound unlikely, and he didn't know where the figures had come from. Everyone in the meeting said it was laughable, especially as 11 properties advertised for over a year hadn't had buyers! - The survey must have asked people in a crowded Town if they'd like to live in a small sleepy village! (loaded question?).
The local (online) plan also had other small villages with similar unlikely numbers, and he said he would investigate.
At the next meeting he said he'd asked his colleagues, and it took some searching. It was because anyone on the housing list is given a list of local villages and Towns - they then state where they would like to live. If the were happy to live in village A, they are counted for it, similarly if they like village B they are on that list as well. There upshot of this (it would seem) is their 'preference' counts in ALL THE VILLAGES & TOWNS on their list! There was no 'negative' ie 'No we don't want to live there' count. It seemed acceptable to him (and presumably his colleagues), that the same people are counted as wanting to live in multiple villages. The fact he didn't readily know, and it took some effort to establish, suggests nobody (or not many) are sufficiently aware of what's happening.
Maybe, just maybe, the amount of 'extra houses we need' has been overstated - perhaps by a factor of 20x ? Who knows?
Is this (overcounting) happening for the whole of the UK, or only for North Norfolk?
Statistics gone mad - any O Level(oops showing my age) GCSE student wouldn't make that mistake.
The illegal invaders currently enjoying a life of riley at our expense at Weathersfield etc etc, most of which will probably Never be rightfully booted out of this country ( unless something drastic changes ) are all going to be "placed" somewhere eventually, so what alternative is there but to build more houses.....
We don't need any new houses to be built. Theres no shortage at all.
Its like me saying there's a shortage of Lamborghini Revueltos.
If you have the money you can get one this afternoon.
Same with houses. Building more housed peolple simply cant afford is daft. Whats needed is either people to earn a whole lot more or cheaper houses.
Not more houses.
Its like me saying there's a shortage of Lamborghini Revueltos.
If you have the money you can get one this afternoon.
Same with houses. Building more housed peolple simply cant afford is daft. Whats needed is either people to earn a whole lot more or cheaper houses.
Not more houses.
Thankyou4calling said:
We don't need any new houses to be built. Theres no shortage at all.
Its like me saying there's a shortage of Lamborghini Revueltos.
If you have the money you can get one this afternoon.
Same with houses. Building more housed peolple simply cant afford is daft. Whats needed is either people to earn a whole lot more or cheaper houses.
Not more houses.
Its like me saying there's a shortage of Lamborghini Revueltos.
If you have the money you can get one this afternoon.
Same with houses. Building more housed peolple simply cant afford is daft. Whats needed is either people to earn a whole lot more or cheaper houses.
Not more houses.
Very little to do with supply and demand, more relevant to keeping the economy ticking over - banking credit, loans, employment etc. Gov. says 300000 houses a year need to be built but doesn't say the UK doesn't have the people to fill them - most people move into/across used housing. It's a huge fudge.
It's entirely due to supply and demand, a lack of supply has contributed to houses now costing more multiples of income than they used to.
If supply is increased then prices start to drop (unless there is a corresponding increase in demand due to population increase).
Ideally the average house should cost three times the average salary in my opinion. That would allow much much more money to flow into the productive economy instead of being tied up in housing. The only viable way to get to that point is a marked increase in supply.
If supply is increased then prices start to drop (unless there is a corresponding increase in demand due to population increase).
Ideally the average house should cost three times the average salary in my opinion. That would allow much much more money to flow into the productive economy instead of being tied up in housing. The only viable way to get to that point is a marked increase in supply.
Blue Oval84 said:
It's entirely due to supply and demand,
.Gov website: "The National Planning Policy Framework explains that the housing requirement may be higher than the identified housing need, and authorities should consider the merits of planning for higher growth if, for example, this would seek to reflect economic growth aspirations." Earthdweller said:
ONS .. 1.5 million unoccupied dwellings in England alone at last census
Many are probably where people don't want to live for various reasons
We are also seeing a large demographic shift, East Anglia being in high demand for people leaving London
Redundancy of housing stock is nothing new. Net new homes over the last 50 years indicate there was always a loss of extant stock that accompanied any addition of new stock.Many are probably where people don't want to live for various reasons
We are also seeing a large demographic shift, East Anglia being in high demand for people leaving London
Blue Oval84 said:
It's entirely due to supply and demand, a lack of supply has contributed to houses now costing more multiples of income than they used to.
If supply is increased then prices start to drop (unless there is a corresponding increase in demand due to population increase).
Ideally the average house should cost three times the average salary in my opinion. That would allow much much more money to flow into the productive economy instead of being tied up in housing. The only viable way to get to that point is a marked increase in supply.
Or the fact you could borrow 3x the main income of a household in 1975, so the average house cost 3x the average income. Fast forward to today and you can borrow 5 times the joint household income so the average house costs 10x the average income. There may be a small shortage of houses which then forces people to bid as high as they can to get that house. Too late now as any price drop will just mean no one sells their house. Everyone wanted relaxed borrowing requirements and this is what they got.If supply is increased then prices start to drop (unless there is a corresponding increase in demand due to population increase).
Ideally the average house should cost three times the average salary in my opinion. That would allow much much more money to flow into the productive economy instead of being tied up in housing. The only viable way to get to that point is a marked increase in supply.
popeyewhite said:
Very little to do with supply and demand, more relevant to keeping the economy ticking over - banking credit, loans, employment etc. Gov. says 300000 houses a year need to be built but doesn't say the UK doesn't have the people to fill them - most people move into/across used housing. It's a huge fudge.
I’d love the be able to see how this works. We have hundreds of new houses going up around us. Hundreds. Fields about 200 yards away have maybe 400 new builds going up, school playing field close by has 260 new builds going up as we speak. North of the town there are several hundred going up and in the villages around any scrap of land that is available is now being built on. Huge supply. I looked at a two bed house for my daughter on one of these developments and it was £340k three and a half years ago. That doesn’t make me believe the huge local over supply will drive down house prices off the plans.The building boom is doing nothing more than filling the coffers of the builders right now. I don’t see anyone being able to bargain down the price due to too many houses.
Now I am not stupid, I do realise that any downward pressure on prices will not be affecting the new builds, but might come about in a few years time.
In my view the mess we are in is driven not but an under supply but the availability of mortgages that allow people to buy houses at these prices.
When I bought my first house we had a 3x main earner an 1 times partner mortgage over 25years that (just) allowed us to afford a two bed semi. The banks now offer 5x joint income over 40 years. That has to be a huge driver of house prices.
vixen1700 said:
The amount of flat building in my part of East London is pretty baffling, huge tower blocks are planned for areas just a short walk away.
The numbers are truly nuts, and there seems to be no increase in public services or infrastructure either.
Dagenham? Where Fords was, just guessing, as the amount going in there is crazy. Also Rainham is getting a lot, with little parking on the back of a new train station being built, thats now not happening.The numbers are truly nuts, and there seems to be no increase in public services or infrastructure either.
I was going to say these planners and councils dont learn from the past mistakes. But im again guessing they just dont give a toss.
Im on about , the 60/70s post war, building loads of tower blocks to house huge numbers of familys and it was great comunitys at first, roll on 20yrs and these comunitys along the A13 up to rainham, were drug riddled crime estates. Eventually most were pulled down and regenerated with lower level living...
And now they are building tower block next to tower block again
Everything in blue here is what’s been added to my corner of town (city actually) in the last 5 years or so.
Not hundreds, but thousands of new homes, by various developers. And very few are ‘council’ homes. Most are 3, 4, and 5 bedrooms. Not a single extra school, shop, gp practice, post office, barely any new roads. Just thousands of homes….
Knowing this area well, and plenty of the folks who live here, it seems to be mostly made up of people who’ve scraped enough money together to move further out to the suburbs, the odd one or two who fancy a new pad on the outskirts, and a few new arrivals from the South (East?) who can make their money go further, and various others.
Back to the topic of the post, the houses being vacated by those moving further out, seem to be almost exclusively being occupied by either ‘students’, or immigrants. I guess this kind of thing has been happening for years in bigger cities? If that’s the case, then we’ll always need new houses.
How many? That’s the question
ARH said:
Blue Oval84 said:
It's entirely due to supply and demand, a lack of supply has contributed to houses now costing more multiples of income than they used to.
If supply is increased then prices start to drop (unless there is a corresponding increase in demand due to population increase).
Ideally the average house should cost three times the average salary in my opinion. That would allow much much more money to flow into the productive economy instead of being tied up in housing. The only viable way to get to that point is a marked increase in supply.
Or the fact you could borrow 3x the main income of a household in 1975, so the average house cost 3x the average income. Fast forward to today and you can borrow 5 times the joint household income so the average house costs 10x the average income. There may be a small shortage of houses which then forces people to bid as high as they can to get that house. Too late now as any price drop will just mean no one sells their house. Everyone wanted relaxed borrowing requirements and this is what they got.If supply is increased then prices start to drop (unless there is a corresponding increase in demand due to population increase).
Ideally the average house should cost three times the average salary in my opinion. That would allow much much more money to flow into the productive economy instead of being tied up in housing. The only viable way to get to that point is a marked increase in supply.
Mortgages nowadays are awarded on a household not earner basis. So yes a house maybe x7 of an individual salary. But then you combine both working applicants it still works out at x3.5 of a salary.
Lesson for the young?
Get married. Or at least coupled up.
It does wonders for your financial health.
MC Bodge said:
There are far more single people (many sharing parental responsibility with an ex partner) looking for homes than there were in the past. The population has also increased.
Well done. My observation was a recommendation. You never know. If younger people paid more attention to the fact, they might need to bleat less about housing prices and the replacement rate might go up.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff