Housing estate design of the last 20yrs - why so bad?

[V8RX7]

Thankyou4calling said:

LET THEM EAT CAKE !

[popeyewhite]

KTF said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

My understanding is that GP and Hospital provision is determined by the NHS rather than local planners.

...based on the (relatively long-term) needs and population of the local community. No doubt planners think long and hard before building houses in such a number that NHS predictions for Hospital efficiency with regard to local population are exceeded. In fact several times I've read of whole estates of 400 houses being cancelled, just because of the planner's concern for what could result in over-stretching local NHS resources

[V8RX7]

Tlandcruiser said:

I was meaning to say how I dont agree with how new builds are promoted to being better than a "used a house" and as such demanding a higher premium.

In most new builds you can choose tiles, kitchen etc

You are also getting a home which needs nothing fixing nor is likely to for many years, it also has lower running costs with better insulation etc

When I first looked for houses I discovered that homes that were allegedly "ready to move into" needed pretty much the same amount of work as homes "needing complete renovation" hence I've always bought projects.

I doubt I'll ever buy a new home (nor a new car) but if everyone was like me then the economy would be screwed !

[Thankyou4calling]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think you’ll find that to be a myth.

[ben5575]

Tlandcruiser said:

I also dont understand how we have a housing shortage, when I can search in any town and find houses for sale.

You’re confusing ‘housing need’ and ‘housing demand’

[Johnnytheboy]

ben5575 said:

Tlandcruiser said:

I also dont understand how we have a housing shortage, when I can search in any town and find houses for sale.

You’re confusing ‘housing need’ and ‘housing demand’

People want houses for less than the market rate.

[popeyewhite]

ben5575 said:

Tlandcruiser said:

I also dont understand how we have a housing shortage, when I can search in any town and find houses for sale.

You’re confusing ‘housing need’ and ‘housing demand’

We're told there is a housing shortage though. Is that not correct?

[ben5575]

Johnnytheboy said:

People want houses for less than the market rate.

Well yes, the same is true for Ferrari’s too.

There isn’t enough housing, be that location, size, type, tenure etc to satisfy the increasing number of households needing housing.

That’s different from demand which is more about Rightmove.

[ben5575]

popeyewhite said:

ben5575 said:

Tlandcruiser said:

I also dont understand how we have a housing shortage, when I can search in any town and find houses for sale.

You’re confusing ‘housing need’ and ‘housing demand’

We're told there is a housing shortage though. Is that not correct?

‘Housing Shortage’ or ‘Housing Requirement’ etc are simple generic terms applied as shorthand by the government or the press that cover both housing need and demand.

[ben5575]

Simple explanation of the difference: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/f0...

Paywalled sorry:

Housing demand refers to the willingness and ability to purchase a house. Housing need refers to the number of houses required, given growth in households, itself derived from household size and population growth. ... Both need a house, only one “demands” a house.

Edited by ben5575 on Tuesday 16th July 22:23

[popeyewhite]

ben5575 said:

‘Housing Shortage’ or ‘Housing Requirement’ etc are simple generic terms applied as shorthand by the government or the press that cover both housing need and demand.

My point is that the phrase bandied is 'housing shortage'. There are, in fact, plenty of houses. Given the tiny percentage of affordable houses (that are actually affordable to those less well off) that developers include as part of a new development it means half the country would have to be covered in concrete before everyone possible is housed - while still ensuring the builders take home their vast profits, often at the government's expense. Might be quicker all round if legislation was passed limiting % profit on new build estates.

[blueg33]

Thankyou4calling said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think you’ll find that to be a myth.

Seems probable to me. I know quite a few house building MD’s who won’t be hitting their target this year.

[blueg33]

KTF said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

My understanding is that GP and Hospital provision is determined by the NHS rather than local planners.

Correct. Each new healthcare development like a hospital or a primary care centre has to have a business case approved by NHS England. These are expensive buildings and if room usage demand cannot be proven it’s unlikely to get approval. The system not joined up. I have seen countless resi consents with a health centre as a s106 obligation, but it’s impossible to get NHS and hence GP support. Without support it can’t be funded.

[ben5575]

popeyewhite said:

ben5575 said:

‘Housing Shortage’ or ‘Housing Requirement’ etc are simple generic terms applied as shorthand by the government or the press that cover both housing need and demand.

My point is that the phrase bandied is 'housing shortage'. There are, in fact, plenty of houses. Given the tiny percentage of affordable houses (that are actually affordable to those less well off) that developers include as part of a new development it means half the country would have to be covered in concrete before everyone possible is housed - while still ensuring the builders take home their vast profits, often at the government's expense. Might be quicker all round if legislation was passed limiting % profit on new build estates.

I know that you think that there are 'in fact' plenty of houses, but there really isn't. The facts behind housing need are carefully governed and scrutinised; every LPA is required to undertake an independent housing needs assessment for their their area: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-d... This in turn governs their housing policy.

Just as a curveball to make a point, people talk about housing need being affordable housing. Go to somewhere like Sunderland for example and they have st loads of affordable housing, but no high quality executive housing. If you want to encourage Nissan to invest more money in their plant and create more jobs, you need to build large, nice and expensive housing to convince their executives to live in the area. If they can't find a nice house, they won't live there which in turn limits their investment.

Edited by ben5575 on Tuesday 16th July 22:59

[popeyewhite]

ben5575 said:

Just as a curveball to make a point, people talk about housing demand being affordable housing. Go to somewhere like Sunderland for example and they have st loads of affordable housing, but no high quality executive housing. If you want to encourage Nissan to invest more money in their plant and create more jobs, you need to build large, nice and expensive housing to convince their executives to live in the area. If they can't find a nice house, they won't live there and which in turn limits their investment.

1. Assuming there are no pre existing large expensive houses,
2. We're almost exclusively given the line there are not enough affordable houses - UK wide. I understand your point regarding job creation in Sunderland, but what tiny % of houses would that represent anyway? And you're suggesting building houses speculatively, ie in the hope people will want new builds on an estate? What happens if they don't, in bloody Sunderland/?
It's late, I'm being argumentative, sorry.

[ben5575]

popeyewhite said:

1. Assuming there are no pre existing large expensive houses,
2. We're almost exclusively given the line there are not enough affordable houses - UK wide. I understand your point regarding job creation in Sunderland, but what tiny % of houses would that represent anyway? And you're suggesting building houses speculatively, ie in the hope people will want new builds on an estate? What happens if they don't, in bloody Sunderland/?
It's late, I'm being argumentative, sorry.

Ha don't worry, I was worried you might think my post as being argumentative which it wasn't either.

I was using Sunderland to make a wider point that 'housing need' isn't necessarily about affordable housing. You're right that the political messages being pumped out there by parties/the media/people with an agenda, would lead you to believe that it is all about affordable housing. Likewise I'm not suggesting that affordable housing isn't important or indeed needed in most places.

Nissan set up in Sunderland because of Thatcher's political imperative (post coal/ship yard closures) but primarily because of a large, cheap, well skilled labour force. What Sunderland can't offer (ask any footballer) is the lifestyle and housing to support the high level managerial requirements. Just because there is existing nice housing, doesn't mean that there is enough of it/the right kind.

If Sunderland wants to encourage more people to invest in it (or relocate a government department say), then part of that decision making process is the ability to attract the right workforce. Therefore housing has an important and strategic role to play in the economic development of an area.

Flip 'Nissan executives' to 'key workers/nurses' and the reverse is equally true. In order to have a properly functioning society in any given location, you need to satisfy the local housing need. You can have lots of very nice houses, but if you ain't got anybody to wipe your arse when you're older because carers can't afford to live near you, means that you're going to have a pretty stty existence in your lovely expensive house. (I may have stretched that a little far!)

[V8RX7]

popeyewhite said:

while still ensuring the builders take home their vast profits, often at the government's expense. Might be quicker all round if legislation was passed limiting % profit on new build estates.

What is the net profit margin that Housebuilders have ?

How does it compare to similar industries ?

[Equus]

popeyewhite said:

And you're suggesting building houses speculatively, ie in the hope people will want new builds on an estate?

Erm... that's what all major housebuilders do. Although it's not a term that's got common currency among the great unwashed, in the industry, the likes of Persimmon, Bloor, Millers, etc. are actually referred to as 'Speculative Housebuilders'.

Just to add to the explanations that Ben has very patiently given, just because we don't have millions of people living on the streets doesn't mean that there's no housing shortage: we've got millions of people living in unsatisfactory accommodation or social situations, because they can't access their own home.

Yes, in many cases that's because they can't afford a suitable home, but that in turn, is because demand outstrips supply.

There is both a need and a demand for more houses. If Brexit happens to bring financial apocalypse with it, the demand will drop off, because more people will recognise that they simply don't have the money, and sit tight in their current, unsatisfactory situations, but it doesn't mean that the need has gone away.

Edited by Equus on Wednesday 17th July 10:03

[KTF]

popeyewhite said:

And you're suggesting building houses speculatively, ie in the hope people will want new builds on an estate? What happens if they don't, in bloody Sunderland/?

This is what housebuilders do. They make a multi million pound bet that people will want to buy the houses they build on the land they have bought when they actually get round to building them at a point in the future.

[ben5575]

Equus said:

Erm... that's what all major housebuilders do. Although it's not a term that's got common currency among the great unwashed, in the industry, the likes of Persimmon, Bloor, Millers, etc. are actually referred to as 'Speculative Hosuebuilders'.

Absolutely and this is the point that is so often not recognised/overlooked. It takes an enormous about resource (time/people/money) to find a site, plan the site, appraise the site, negotiate the site, design the planning application, provide the evidence for the planning application, get planning, pay the s.106, finance it, build the thing and then hope that the world hasn't gone to pot and people still want to buy your houses.

All of that is money out, all at risk, for considerable periods of time (as in years). The profit will be 20%+ on the value of the finished scheme (if it sells).

But it's easy money right? If that was the case, why aren't more people doing it?

In answer to an earlier point about limiting house builder profit, I think it's important to realise that houses are simply a commodity/widget that a business is producing to make a profit. If they can use their money to make more profit on say shoulders of beef, then they will stop building houses and start cattle farming. Unfortunately, that doesn't resolve the housing need issue.