Next steps on Housing Crisis by Conservative government

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    s.21 was on the cards. Does this mean more and more evictions are going to result in CCJ's? Is that where we are headed?

    If you want non-EU doctors to come over, you need to make it easy for them. Canada and Australia are throwing visa's at them. To come to the UK it's 8k fees per person. So you're an Indian doctor, you want to bring your partner over, you want to bring your 2 kids over. 32K down. Plus rent in the meantime whilst you get settled and understand the sector and decide where you want to work. Yet we tell them we need them. Home Office can stop pretending to be professional office run for the betterment for the country, it's just a cash for stamp office.


      Wonder if they'll introduce charges for refugee children ?


        Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
        “My government will take steps to support home ownership, including by making homes available at a discount for local first-time buyers.”

        ● The Government will support people to realise the dream of homeownership. One of the biggest divides in our country is between those who can afford their own home and those who cannot.

        ● The Government will shortly launch a consultation on First Homes. This will provide homes for local people and key workers at a discount of at least 30 per cent - saving them tens of thousands of pounds.

        ● The discount on First Homes will be secured through a covenant. This means these homes will remain discounted in perpetuity, supporting people now and in the future who aspire to own a home of their own.

        ● The Government will also renew the Affordable Homes Programme, building hundreds of thousands of new homes for a range of people in different places. This will help us prevent people from falling into homelessness while also supporting further people into homeownership.

        ● We will introduce a new, reformed Shared Ownership model, making buying a share of a home fairer and more transparent. This new model will be simpler to understand and better able shared owners to buy more of their property and eventually reach full ownership.

        ● To deliver on the homes this country needs, the Government is committed to building at least a million more homes over this Parliament. In the coming months we will set out further steps to achieve this, including an ambitious Planning White Paper and funding for critical infrastructure.

        What does it mean " The discount on first homes will be secured by a covenant " ?

        I wonder if this statement means a " leasehold property to exist in perpetuity" ?.


          Freehold properties can have covenants as well.

          I'm not sure how you can have a covenant that distorts market price, although you could that requires owner occupation.

          Shared ownership is implemented by leases, even now. The housing association leases to the tenant at a high premium and reduced rent.


            Originally posted by Gordon999 View Post
            What does it mean " The discount on first homes will be secured by a covenant "
            There's been some suggestion that builders will have to commit to paying the subsidy in order to secure planning permission, rather like the "affordable homes" they are meant to supply (but rarely do in reality).

            I'm more bothered by the "local" part.
            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).


              Political promises tend to become aspirations. Whenever I see the banner People's Government I think of People's Republic.


                I would imagine it is relatively simple to create a covenant that states that the property must always be sold at a 30% discount to the local market. However this then distorts the local market and has the effect of lowering the market price of local properties.


                  The discount figure would have to be fixed and carried forward.

                  If a property was built and sold at £300,000 so a discount of £90,000 meaning the purchase price for a local person would be £210,000, the discount on future sales must have to be £90,000.

                  Otherwise, if the value of the property doubled, the seller would have to discount £180,000* which would mean they'd never put it up for sale unless the market had fallen since they purchased it.

                  And the discount presumably applies after the first purchase to people who are not local or key workers, otherwise either the market would be too limited or key worker status would be absurdly valuable.

                  And, once more, much more money to be "saved" being a local in London than one in Newcastle.

                  Like many political promises, when you look at the practicality of how things would actually work, they rather evaporate.

                  *ignoring the problem of actually valuing something that is usually advertised at more than the market value and sold at a lower figure than advertised.
                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).


                    Is there any mileage in the idea that the easiest way for the govt to ease the housing crisis is to ease up on planning, (or do *something*??) that boosts the supply side.

                    No amount of altered rules will change home ownership levels much if there are not enough housese/flats, and if they are too expensive.

                    [important disclaimer...'im no expert'...but...]

                    One anecdotal thing i can tell you relates to a big residential project i know of, where a big landowner pursued permission to build several thousand homes.

                    The landowner is a former public utility, now private and at liberty to sell land for development.

                    Of course, huge resistance and enquiries followed, endless legal pressure from NIMBY lobby not wanting development in the area.

                    However...when it was finally pushed through, what became fairly clear to me (and more to the point, to better informed people in property business who explained it to me)

                    was that, having redesignated the land, no developer was actually particularly interested in building actual houses.

                    In reality, the whole project would appear to have been undertaken in order to increase the value of the land, which is now an object of speculative investment.

                    All the promises of new roads and facilities that were promised by potential planners/developers (new roads , schools, facitilities) were rowed back on..

                    And furthermore, it now occurs to me that an EVEN CHEAPER way for the owners to capitalise is just to sit back and let the land value rise (or fall, i suppose) in sync with overall property prices. Not actually having to build (which does cost a lot) seems to make this operation even more cost effective. (handy ongoing land price increases expected, for zero outlay in building costs)

                    I've read various other accounts (not paying full attention, i'll admit), in which a very hefty profit sneaks in at the point of redesignation of the land, and seems to be a case of unearned income for former utilities, or maybe councils

                    Couldn't regulation that only allows planning IF building is undertaken to a stricter schedule (or is lost), hugely increase actual units delivered?

                    At that point, supply vs demand market forces reduce home prices


                      What a sensible post therefore unlikely politicians will do anything like it. Would affect people with money.
                      Rory Stewart pointed out a major weakness in politics. They are always talking about what and rarely about how.


                        Doesn't planning permission time out after three years?
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).


                          Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                          Doesn't planning permission time out after three years?
                          I don't understand the relevance.

                          After the three year limit, they would need to reapply, in which case the condition would be reimposed.

                          There are four and ten year limits on taking action on breaches, but those start at the time of the breach.


                            Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
                            I don't understand the relevance.
                            I was responding to the point made by inthelandlordzone that companies were increasing the value of their land by getting planning permission to develop it and not then doing any development.
                            The idea being that to address it it would be possible to force the developer to build to a stricter schedule or lose the planning permission.

                            As a homeowner, planning permission expires if work hasn't begun within three years, and I was asking if it was the same for a huge company proposing to build 1000s of homes?

                            Because if so, any increase in the value of the land bank is only temporary.
                            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).


                              I believe that a lot of this discussion is flavoured by where your rental property (or land) is.

                              Are you in the South (London based) or in the North?

                              The government has just won a lot of new Northern MPs and suddenly are anouncing new initiatives for the north.

                              We'll see if anything actually happens.


                              Latest Activity