How far will house prices fall [volume 4]
Discussion
matrignano said:
Can I have some advice on leasehold vs freehold for central London flats?
Am I right in thinking that, as a 1st time buyer, I'm better off going for a leasehold with at least 90 years remaining?
My reasoning is that I would likely not keep the property for more than 5-10 years, and therefore it would not be worth paying the premium for a freehold (vs. an equivalent leasehold flat)? Also leasehold service charges seem to be much lower on a comparable basis?
Do you actually see many share of freehold flats in central London?Am I right in thinking that, as a 1st time buyer, I'm better off going for a leasehold with at least 90 years remaining?
My reasoning is that I would likely not keep the property for more than 5-10 years, and therefore it would not be worth paying the premium for a freehold (vs. an equivalent leasehold flat)? Also leasehold service charges seem to be much lower on a comparable basis?
In general, share of freehold is seen as being better than leasehold by a lot of people. The main advantage is that you own a portion of the company that owns the freehold of the building, meaning that it should, in theory, be cheaper to grant yourself lease extensions and to manage the maintenance of the building.
In reality, if it is a large development and the owners of the other shares aren't puling together it can be more trouble than it's worth.
If you own a share of the freehold you are still a leaseholder of your own flat as well, so should still look for as long a lease as possible with low charges.
Rovinghawk said:
Angrybiker said:
I am in love with the water wheel and the mechanics
I suspect they'd grow stale very quickly, especially with regard to cleaning & maintenance.
(or a Brexit proof mansion if you're reading the 'how will the EU negotiations go' thread 
)Rovinghawk said:
Angrybiker said:
moat with crocodiles
Sharks with frikkin' laser beams, sir.(Ideally lasers recharged with electricity from your mill wheel.)
Although to be fair sharks would be a lot more hassle, what with how much more they need to eat and salt water etc. With a few fresh water crocs just chuck a chicken or two over the wall every once in a while, they'd be fine.
Tango13 said:
RAF Henlow will be closing soon(ish) so there will be an explosion in house building all along the A507, maybe even to the point where Stotfold and Arlesey join up.
There's a proposal to create something called the Etonbury Wheel, with the centre at Etonbury Woods. Effectively a cycling / walking "circle" taking in a number of villages. The interesting aspect of this is that part of the proposal is to create a footbridge over the A507 between Arlesey and the wood (Stotfold side) - paid for by developers developing on the fringe of Arlesey. There's new development going on opposite Fairfield (old pig farm), and a large new development proposed on the north side of Letchworth. These towns and villages are growing together rather rapidly. It's clear something needs to give, now my kids and mates kids are starting to near the age when they will be trying to get on the housing ladder I've suddenly become acutely aware just how messed up the housing market has become and when the Tory Minister for housing calls it a crisis then you know it's serious.
Blue62 said:
It's clear something needs to give, now my kids and mates kids are starting to near the age when they will be trying to get on the housing ladder I've suddenly become acutely aware just how messed up the housing market has become and when the Tory Minister for housing calls it a crisis then you know it's serious.
Absolutely, but the question is what can give? The government have thrown their full weight behind increasing house prices for the last twenty years by increasing population/demand for homes, increasing attractiveness of housing as an investment by breaking the rest of the economy and by all of the ‘Help to Buy-type’ schemes that allow people to afford higher prices.I used to think that they’d run out of tools to keep the plates spinning, but they keep coming. Now it is the proposal to remove stamp duty in order to increase prices further.
I do think that people have already adjusted to a certain extent – I am sure your kids view housing in a very different way to how you did at their age. Their kids will probably not even think about owning a house at all unless anything does change.
It is a great shame for most people, but it would be even more painful unwinding this than it has been winding it up. The Government in power if/when it happens would be wiped out, hence the desperation not to let it happen. As you say, they are starting to talk like they mean it now, but would they actually know what to do?
kingston12 said:
I used to think that they’d run out of tools to keep the plates spinning, but they keep coming.
The politicians have proven they will do whatever it takes to inflate house prices as much as possible.As there's very few areas of industry where people can gain serious, genuine pay increases, we now rely on aritifially inflated house prices to keep us happy, keep us spending, and make us think everything is fine!
Government policy, and having too many people in too small a space (through immigration and rapidly expanding population already here); both should shoulder the blame.
Surely the only thing they can do is to embark on a mahoosive building programme, using a loan scheme to local councils to encourage them to build.............council houses!
It's time for radical change rather than the tinkering referred to to keep the plates spinning. Good quality rental homes at sensible rents and in enough numbers will help to balance the market, but politics and dogma will get in the way no doubt.
It's time for radical change rather than the tinkering referred to to keep the plates spinning. Good quality rental homes at sensible rents and in enough numbers will help to balance the market, but politics and dogma will get in the way no doubt.
Blue62 said:
Surely the only thing they can do is to embark on a mahoosive building programme, using a loan scheme to local councils to encourage them to build.............council houses!
It's time for radical change rather than the tinkering referred to to keep the plates spinning. Good quality rental homes at sensible rents and in enough numbers will help to balance the market, but politics and dogma will get in the way no doubt.
That would be ideal, but you are forgetting the power of the property developers. They are the real winners out of all of this and have got used to their massive profits.It's time for radical change rather than the tinkering referred to to keep the plates spinning. Good quality rental homes at sensible rents and in enough numbers will help to balance the market, but politics and dogma will get in the way no doubt.
At the lower end, they don't want to build council flats/houses, they want to build units that will attract the best of the Government kick-backs, either 'Help to Buy' or even better (for them) fractional ownership.
I don't think that lack of land is the issue per se.
The issue is lack of land, with planing permission, that is being 'landbanked' by developers.
Solution 1). Start charging developers Council Tax (backdated to the date of purchase) on any land they hold.
ie if a developer has a plot with approval for (say) 20 4 bed houses then they pay CT for all 20 houses - the result would be that there would be a fair number of houses built pretty quickly.........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/18/top...
Solution 2). Forget all this 'getting a social mix' by insisting developers build a certain percentage of 'social housing' in a development..... instead let the local authority charge a 'development tax' on all new builds, 20% say. This money be earmarked for 'affordable' housing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/22/pro...
The issue is lack of land, with planing permission, that is being 'landbanked' by developers.
Solution 1). Start charging developers Council Tax (backdated to the date of purchase) on any land they hold.
ie if a developer has a plot with approval for (say) 20 4 bed houses then they pay CT for all 20 houses - the result would be that there would be a fair number of houses built pretty quickly.........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/18/top...
Solution 2). Forget all this 'getting a social mix' by insisting developers build a certain percentage of 'social housing' in a development..... instead let the local authority charge a 'development tax' on all new builds, 20% say. This money be earmarked for 'affordable' housing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/22/pro...
z4RRSchris said:
the more social and 'tax' you chuck on these developments they longer they will sit undeveloped.
just because a site has planning permission doesn't mean it works as a development. the amount of sites i look at that have a negative land value is unreal.
Sorry for being thick- but if a site has planning permission to build a house then why would they have a negative land value?just because a site has planning permission doesn't mean it works as a development. the amount of sites i look at that have a negative land value is unreal.
fizz47 said:
z4RRSchris said:
the more social and 'tax' you chuck on these developments they longer they will sit undeveloped.
just because a site has planning permission doesn't mean it works as a development. the amount of sites i look at that have a negative land value is unreal.
Sorry for being thick- but if a site has planning permission to build a house then why would they have a negative land value?just because a site has planning permission doesn't mean it works as a development. the amount of sites i look at that have a negative land value is unreal.
fizz47 said:
z4RRSchris said:
the more social and 'tax' you chuck on these developments they longer they will sit undeveloped.
just because a site has planning permission doesn't mean it works as a development. the amount of sites i look at that have a negative land value is unreal.
Sorry for being thick- but if a site has planning permission to build a house then why would they have a negative land value?just because a site has planning permission doesn't mean it works as a development. the amount of sites i look at that have a negative land value is unreal.
alfaspecial said:
I don't think that lack of land is the issue per se.
The issue is lack of land, with planing permission, that is being 'landbanked' by developers.
Solution 1). Start charging developers Council Tax (backdated to the date of purchase) on any land they hold.
ie if a developer has a plot with approval for (say) 20 4 bed houses then they pay CT for all 20 houses - the result would be that there would be a fair number of houses built pretty quickly.........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/18/top...
Solution 2). Forget all this 'getting a social mix' by insisting developers build a certain percentage of 'social housing' in a development..... instead let the local authority charge a 'development tax' on all new builds, 20% say. This money be earmarked for 'affordable' housing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/22/pro...
Don't forget the NIMBYS. Every time a proposal pops up round my way for new house building there are massive campaigns against it. Poster boards put up, petitions created, Facebook campaigns etc. The issue is lack of land, with planing permission, that is being 'landbanked' by developers.
Solution 1). Start charging developers Council Tax (backdated to the date of purchase) on any land they hold.
ie if a developer has a plot with approval for (say) 20 4 bed houses then they pay CT for all 20 houses - the result would be that there would be a fair number of houses built pretty quickly.........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/18/top...
Solution 2). Forget all this 'getting a social mix' by insisting developers build a certain percentage of 'social housing' in a development..... instead let the local authority charge a 'development tax' on all new builds, 20% say. This money be earmarked for 'affordable' housing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/22/pro...
Blue62 said:
Surely the only thing they can do is to embark on a mahoosive building programme, using a loan scheme to local councils to encourage them to build.............council houses!
It's time for radical change rather than the tinkering referred to to keep the plates spinning. Good quality rental homes at sensible rents and in enough numbers will help to balance the market, but politics and dogma will get in the way no doubt.
We love building houses; we are much slower at building the rest of the infrastructure required.It's time for radical change rather than the tinkering referred to to keep the plates spinning. Good quality rental homes at sensible rents and in enough numbers will help to balance the market, but politics and dogma will get in the way no doubt.
It's such a shame 'we' have put GDP and material wealth above quality of life for the existing population.
fizz47 said:
z4RRSchris said:
the more social and 'tax' you chuck on these developments they longer they will sit undeveloped.
just because a site has planning permission doesn't mean it works as a development. the amount of sites i look at that have a negative land value is unreal.
Sorry for being thick- but if a site has planning permission to build a house then why would they have a negative land value?just because a site has planning permission doesn't mean it works as a development. the amount of sites i look at that have a negative land value is unreal.
loads of dreamers out there with unviable sites they think are worth a mint
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff