General Discussion

Walking on the hills above Dawlish and took a couple of photo's of the ever increasing carbuncle they call a housing development these days. It's just a mass of boxes slammed as close together as possible. When you consider the planning applications for some small changes to peoples homes get turned down, but this thing just does what it wants! As they say money talks.

Point well made.  The equivalent of traditional terraced houses with back yards masquerading not to be so.

According to many young people I know they seem to have been brain washed into believing that not having a garden to look after equates to an 'uncluttered lifestyle'.

Or maybe they have to pragmatically believe/accept that to afford anything these days. 

Planning regulations have been changed to allow houses to be built even closer together than previously. Also don't forget that councils get paid for every new house built - a great incentive to allow even more housing on large swathes of the countryside.

The thing I don't understand is that with house prices being so ridiculously high, how is it not more possible to utilise brown field sites more.  In particular to heavily skew the council payments to this effect?

Looking again at the above picture, the thing that strikes me, is that there would seem to be little to no chance of any trees ever being allowed to grow between the houses to soften the blot to the eye.

I know it's not nice having houses built on places we love , but people need somewhere to live . Sorry it's a fact.

And there is not a better place than Devon.

@Onport1968 - im not adverse to extra houses being built. what i do object to is all the usual planning guidelines that the rest of us have to endure being thrown out the windows for these gluttonous developers.

The houses are so close together, little or no gardens, minimal parking. A two bed flat I saw advertised, on this estate,  has 3 gagrages below it and I presume only one belongs to the flat! What fire precautions are in place for the occupants of the flat if a car catches fire in one of the garages?

I would have thought packing people in so close is only going to cause issues down the line. 

They only get planning permission because the council get loads of money from the builders. hence they get approved.. 

IE BACK HANDERS. LITTLE BROWN ENVELOPES .

Questions I have asked myself about the new house building have been along these lines:

Should this country be as self sufficent as it possible can be? Yes.

Should we then be building on green, fertile, food producing, farmland? No

Are there then enough brown field sites in areas of housing demand to support the amount of new housing needed? Doubt it.  

Is there 'spare' housing in parts of the country where demand is low? So, I've read.

So, possibly enough housing 'out there' already but in the 'wrong' parts of the country? Seems that might be the case.

So, does the demand for housing in certain parts of this country outstrip supply? Yes

Is the cost of housing in certain parts of this country high relative to incomes? Yes 

So, if more houses get built in areas of high demand might that reduce the cost? All other things being equal that is what the economic law of supply and demand would suggest. 

and on the subject of farmland and the cost of housing...........here's an extract from a letter in last week's Observer.

"...........the real problem is the cost of land and its increase in value when planning permission is granted. Ten acres of farmland worth £8,000 per acre can multiply

80 times with a stroke of the planner's pen. This is lunatic: having created this value the community then stuffs it into the pockets of builders and

developers (often the same people) apart from painfully extracting a few symbolic goodies in the shape of such things as a new surgery, a road

improvement, a sports or community facility". 

and this link gives some interesting info regarding the value of land http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/land-prices.asp

Where is the new surgery? And I don't see any evidence of road improvements. Has Teignbridge council sold us short on this?

A new surgery?  You mean there's a possibility Dawlish folk might have an alternative to the Barton Surgery gestapo?  Nah.  Not in my lifetime. 

It was on the plans Mcjrpc.  It would be nice to have an alternative to the Barton Surgery, there seems to be a certain amount of complacency there.

I bet the people moaning about housing live in houses.

As for gardens, new home owners probably can't afford to look after a garden or have the time as they have to work so hard just to pay the mortgage.

The people who gain the most from higher house prices

HMRC stamp duty, CGT & death duties

Estate agents

Banks

Solicitors

Well said. 

On the question of the extra surgery.  I've read somewhere (comments made on the emerging local plan I think) that the local NHS have said that the site at Barton 

surgery is such that, if necesary, it can expand to accommodate more patients. Words to that effect anyway.

So on the one hand councils downgrade public services, while at the 'stroke of a pen' in the other hand can turn pennies into pounds granting planning permission.

Something must be very badly mis-firing with the system if they struggle so much to balance the books?! 

The problem faced in this country on the subject of lack of housing is an issue caused by one group of people who have no housing issues themselves, far from it. Can anyone guess what group that may be?  Indeed, that is correct, the Government. Through 'Right to buy' on council houses at massive discounts to the purchaser through to a non effective immigration policy and enforced via the unwillingness to deport illegal immigrants when found. This has all added up to a population that has expanded way beyond the means of this tiny island to accomodate with significant damage to the well being of our little Kingdom.

We have all experienced the short sightedness of politicians whether you be a home owner or not, young or old, working or middle class, have children or not. 

This country has crippling debt that interest, substantial payments, has to be paid on time, an ever increasing population assisted by the incompetence of politicians and a continued daily multi million pound payment to the E.U. 

When will the people of this country realise that drastic change is needed in the governing of our country if we want to see positive, long term, changes for this once proud nation. 

Well, it could be argued that local authorities are indeed struggling to balance the books. Cut backs in funding from central government plus restrictions on

how much they can increase council tax are bound to lead to them struggling. How to raise extra money? Well, one way is by giving permission for new houses to be built.

Councils get a certain amount of money from central government (the New Homes Bonus) for each new home built plus of course with each new home built

another lot of council tax is generated.

Also, local councils' hands are tied when it comes to new house building in that central government legislation of about two/three years ago concerning planning

legislation put lots of emphasis on new house building.  If councils flout these guidelines developers will go to Appeal and inevitably the Appeal will be upheld.

Locally - if anyone is so inclined and wanting to know how Dawlish has gained in infrastructure so far from the recent house building try contacting

quote to them the following:

Strongvox (top of Carhaix) - planning ref: 08/02514/Maj and 10/01424/Maj

Bovis Cavanna (Secmaton Lane) - planning ref 09/03794/Maj

Barrats (Langdon Lane/newlands) - planning ref 11/03265/Maj

There is also the Shutterton Park Development (went to Appeal, Appeal upheld). Planning ref 12/02281/MAj. Building work yet to commence I believe

but there will be some planning gain of some kind attached to that planning consent.

Also there are the other smaller planning permissions for house building that have been granted over the past 12 months or so in the Gatehouse area. Don't have

the planning references for these off hand but the planners at TDC will be able to trace them (and what they offer in terms of infrastructure planning gain for

Dawlish.)

I get that councils get money from central g'ovt for building houses but does central g'ovt or the public purse more generally benefit in any significant way from the windfall increase in land value when permission is granted?  Would be interesting for someone to do the maths from Lynne's comprehensive list of applications.

Simplistically for me, the very long term council tax rise on my house has averaged an unbelievable 6.5% pa !!!  So I don't have any sympathy with councils on that score.

As for the EU being blamed, has anyone read the international news lately?  If Putin gets control of Ukraine his ICBMs can then be wheeled right up to the Polish border and thus undermine the missile defence shield they have kindly allowed NATO to base there (not to mention the radar systems based in Cz).  Right now the EU, and all the democratically minded friends that brings us, is the best game in town to counterbalance his many not so little green men and the global implications of their ongoing undermining of international law.

Remember there is always the potential for millions of British expats entitled to come and live in Dawlish ......!!!

Putin - quite possibly it is because the ex communist buffer states twixt the west and Russia are now members of the EU and/or NATO that Putin has acted in the way he

has in Ukraine. 

And it did go through my mind as well that if, say, we were to pull out of the EU then an awful lot of expats presently living in other parts of Europe might find

coming back to dear ol' Blighty either obligatory or an easier option. And I wonder how that would impact on the housing crisis here? (don't mean here as in Dawlish

 in particular rather here as in the UK in general)

Also of course there are other factors that have probably aided and abetted our shortage of housing:

1) that not all partners stay together until death they do part. Thus if a partnership breaks down then whereas the family once lived in one house now two are needed?

Multiply out that scenario and that will definitely have an impact on the supply/demand of housing.

2) we have an increasingly ageing population both in terms of numbers and in terms of longevity. This will also impact on the

availablity of housing.   

3) what happens to a commodity if too much of it is put on the market? Its price drops, doesn't it? Who will benefit if the price drops? First time buyers. Anyone else?

I don't think so. It is to the developers' benefit for there to be a shortage of houses - keeps the prices high you see and increases their profit margin. Also it benefits

the politicians (especially when there is a General Election only 12 months away) for house prices to rise. Gives home owners a 'feel good' feeling apparently.  

You might find this of interest http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/education_planningandlandvalue.pdf

Nobody has taken into consideration the 200,000 plus immigrants who need housing and thats a year on year increase we need to be building thousands of houses just get used to it folk they will be building more and more.   With reference to Barton Surgary they are at the moment building 4 new consulting rooms.

Don't suppose you know how many of the 200,000 are made up of overseas students? I only ask as I think overseas students are 

included in these figures. There is an argument that says they shouldn't be, given as they are here only on a temporary basis.

Also, don't forget, they bring money into this country. University/college fees for example and then what they spend when in this country.

Overseas students studying here is an invisible export this country needs to hold onto.  

Yo! Look what I've just found!

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=37272&p=0

it's a breakdown of recent large developments in the TDC area (and therefore includes Dawlish). 

If you keep scrolling down you will come across the housing developments in Dawlish and a breakdown of the developer S106 contributions eg how much

and on what spent.

My vote increase

Council tax

Business rates

Income tax

& tax on fuel

Yes I pay all of them, I believe you get what you pay for in life so stop moaning and put your money where your mouth is

I vote min 10% increase in all the above

Your Silence speaks volumes

Who is the you? Do you have a particular you in mind or are you speaking to a general you? 

For what it is worth this particular you thinks along your lines in that if people want lower taxes then it follows that public

services will be negatively impacted. If, on the other hand, people want good public services then they have to pay for them.

And that means higher taxation.  

There is also political ideology involved don't forgot. General rule of thumb - the Conservatives are pro private enterprise and anti public

sector. That philosophy would hold even if we had so much money in this country we couldn't think what to do with it. 

Well said Lynne

So......to return to the topic of housing development and farmland.

Thought this from The Telegraph in March 2013 might be of interest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921344/Councillors-for-hire-who-give-firms-planning-advice.html

Okay, the following may be a bit simplistic but the way I see the housing issue is as follows:

That all this new house building and the cost of housing (both to buy and to rent) is a bit of a problem  for the Conservative Party given as property owning is a

central tenet of their philosophy (cf Thatcher’s Right to Buy policy of the 1980s).

On the one hand we need more housing and the government knows it. But if more housing is built then it will be built on green fields (which will upset, is already

upsetting, Tory voters) and if then enough new housing is built to meet demand then house prices will fall (which will again upset Tory voters already on the home

ownership ladder).

(And do not forget the UKIP threat to the Conservative party caused by disaffected Tories!)

Then there is the issue of the Housing Benefit bill. It needs to be reduced. But it can only be reduced if demand for rented housing falls which in turn will lower

rental values.  Demand for rented housing will only fall when there is more housing on the market and, more to the point, more housing at prices which first time

buyers can afford.  Not all renters claim housing benefit in order to pay their rent but enough have to do so resulting in the HB bill being kept sky high.

(Incidentally I’ve recently seen Housing Benefit defined as: when the government subsidises landlords and accuses the tenants of sponging off the state).

There was an article in yesterday’s Observer about housing. Here is an extract:

“To get to the heart of the problem you do not need to be a Nobel winning economist. You simply require the ability to spot the bleeding obvious. That there are

too many people chasing too little housing. That is the fundamental cause of expensive rents and property at unaffordable prices. The 1970s has a generally bad

reputation as a decade, but they got at least one thing right then. They did some building. About four-fifths of public spending on housing was devoted to

constructing homes while just a fifth was paid out in benefits to assist people with their rent. Over the current four year spending period, less than £5bn has been

allocated to building homes and £95bn has been earmarked for housing benefit. Spending more than 20 times as much subsidising rents as we do building new

homes. There is only one word for this: madness”     

1.8 million families are on the waiting list for social housing.

470,000 of the 4 milllion migrants who arrived in the last 10 yrs where given social housing.

David Cameron has put forward plans to give locals first priority on waiting lists.

Migrants will only be eligable for housing after working in the UK for 2 years

Sorry, forgot to point out that whilst the Conservatives promote home ownership and the private sector they don't like the public

sector and they don't like publicly owned houses. (council houses).

"................there was nothing inevitable about this housing crunch. The new immigrants brought with them skills and a willingness

to work and some of them could have been used to increase the stock of social housing - many Eastern European immigrants to

Britain worked in the construction sector and all of those Polish workers building the Gherkin or Shard in London could have been

using their skills not to build skyscrapers for business but to build homes for the rest of us, perhaps even council houses.  And

perhaps that would have changed perceptions about the desirability of immigration as the distribution of the benefits and costs

of immigration would have been very different.  The big problem for the UK has been rising inequality and a side-effect of that

has been that the immigrants ended up working disproportionately for the wealthiest not for the average Briton.

It would not be hard to reduce the shortage of social housing.  At current interest rates councils would be able to borrow at low

long-term interest rates to invest in social housing.  But they are prevented from doing so because such borrowing would be

seen as adding to the government deficit though it should not really be seen in this way as it is borrowing to finance the

acquisition of long-term assets.  The Budget seemed to recognize the desirability of increasing house-building in general but not

social housing where there seems an ideological block.........."  

From http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=4375&title=Immigration-and-Social-Housing

Mark Twain summed it up very well many years ago with his advice to, 'Buy land, they aren't making it anymore.'

Ask anyone in the Czech Republic or Slovakia who suffered 44years of Russian occupation and I can promise you that they will tell you it was worse than under the Nazi occupation.  Make no mistake, Putin is out on a self declared mission to wrestle back as much of the ex-USSR as he possibly can.  He doesn't need excuses, though of course seeks to find handy ones.  As wise 'Mutti Merkel' reportedly summed it up, 'It's as if he's on another world'.  Ukraine is an easy target as it is neither in the EU nor NATO protected, but was promised border integrity in return for relinquishing it's nuclear weapons.  But Russia will not stop at Ukraine anymore than it did with Georgia, Syria and the Crimea.  We will then see how many immigrants come flooding our way.  And then regret at leisure that the EU allowed the price of gas to weaken our resolve to stick up for democratically minded friends in good time.

A little closer to home, and the more immediate issue of housing demand, the radio news was saying this morning (also see today's Daily Mail) that:

Does this source of population growth carry the biggest potential for 'never ending' housing demand?

some interesting information @Lynne.  i don't see that most of the current building is assisting with the housing shortage at a social housing level - have you seen some of the prices?! 

@Andysport i do find the comment of "so stop moaning" grating.  a view that is not the same as yours is not 'moaning'.  differing opinions on a discussion are not 'moaning'.  why does the silence 'speak volumes'.  tell people they are moaning doesn't encourage debate.

@Clive - you haven't defined ethnic minorities (does the daily mail?). do you mean non white people? it's just that you talk of the white population growth remaining

constant. So, no impact then on the UK's population growth by white EU migrants? Not sure just exactly what groups you/The Daily Mail are actually referring to.

addendum: just looked into this a bit more. Seems the ethnic minority groups in question are: the five largest minority groups in the UK - Indian, Pakistani,

Bangladeshi, Black African and Black Caribbean.

Does anyone one know when the shutterton park development is starting construction?

@Lynne - sorry, no idea how these things are accurately defined, can probably mean almost anything you want it to.  probably best left to the daily mail or the 'more or less' programme to get 'definitive answers'!!

I think the wider point with respect to housing demand is that UK population growth is already 'written on the wall' to hit around 80million by 2050 whether by in-shore 'baby numbers', other folk new to these shores or a combination, plus general ageing.

Perhaps a little alarmist, but reading the article below, makes Dawlish's 'Blot on the Landscape' sound more like an insignificant pimple by comparison...or maybe a harbinger of far more yet to happen...  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2223757/Sardine-Britain-What-life-like-2050-experts-predict-population-exploded-80million.html

...and so given many more than at present are predicted to reach a century (another factor that affects population growth - so God willing we are all to blame in some small way) many of us may yet live to see how acurately this prediction comes true.

On the upside, the demand for public transport will ensure the good old seawall gets all the future funding it deserves 

p.s. 'I have a friend' whose niece was born in England ('ethnic English' parents, grand parents, great grand parents etc) moved to France as a child, now a French national, given birth to a beautiful baby girl, Father from ex. African colony.  Does that make said baby black/white, African, French, European, English or all of the above?  Don't ask me, just one example of how the world has become a 'global village' with one more mouth to be fed and housed somewhere.  The interesting equity of the situation is that it seems to me that Britain spent many centuries cheerfully spreading out to populate the rest of the world and now it is 'coming home to roost', so to speak.  As a percentage, I think our population isn't necessarily growing any faster than the rest of the planet, so I guess we will just have to rely on our engineers to make it as comfortable as possible, and farmers to produce ever more from less land until people learn to stop breeding so much

@Clive - i've just looked at that daily mail link you given two posts above. it says the article was written by a leading historian but i cannot find that historian named

anywhere. Now I would have thought that if the historian was so 'leading' that s/he would have been named, not least to give some credence and

weight to the contents of said article. And why would a historian be writing about the future? Might be me of course (I do so need to go to Specsavers soon),so

if you can see a named historian anywhere in or near that article can you let me know the name please?

I looked at the comments underneath the article and this one caught my eye and summed up my thoughts exactly

 "What a pile of reactionary, scaremongering, knee-jerk tosh"

addendum: I suddenly thought "I'll google the name of that journalist at the top of the piece." Well, well, lo. and. behold. Only turns out that he is

an historian (google his name and look him up). Do you think he had himself in mind when talking of a 'leading' historian? Never heard of him myself. 

@Lynne - anything i read in the newspapers i always view very sceptically indeed, with the ft finding me possibly the least sceptical.

Nevertheless, I have heard the 80million population quoted quite often so have come to believe in that figure as being perfectly possible.

As for the vision of sardines in a can, try the LU anytime of the day or even suburban trains at 9 or 10pm in the evening and it is often standing room only leaving London even at that late hour.

Ditto, when 'the wall was down' I took coaches to the SW instead and on one occasion the traffic was so bad it took 2hours just to get from Victoria to Heathrow.

I get a sense that population growth/housing will be somewhat regional with the cyclonic effect of London (already euphemistically called by some as a 'country within a country') sucking up a disproportionate amount of it with the regions getting away with less demand the further away they are.

So before too many calls for faster transport links to the SW, maybe we should be a little careful what we wish for - if we value the santuary of places like Dawlish remaining so!!

I see from today's Gazette (page XII of the property pages) that one of the houses, The Langstone, on the new Bovis/Cavanna estate at Secmaton

Lane, will be open to the public this coming Saturday 10th May between 2pm-4pm. So if you are interested to see what £334,995 could buy you might want to

nosey on down.

http://www.bovishomes.co.uk/new-homes-on-nicklebyplace/the-langstone?hse=sw4028  

I nearly choked on my coffee then Lynne reading your post.

and another thing........ there is nothing that restricts any one person to owning only one property is there? I mean,

you got the dosh you can buy as many properties as you like and then rent 'em out. Either to generation rent or, as we are

a holiday resort, to holiday makers.

Generation Rent please wake up! - you've got 12 months between now and the next general election. Use your voice(s) and your

electoral clout to make 'em listen!

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Struggling-voters-rent-homes-decide-Plymouth-MP-s/story-20923432-detail/story.html

Agree Lynne, biggest benefit receivers, wealthy private landlords

High house prices, generation rent. How did it happen?

“In the past decade, the private rented sector has nearly doubled in size, from around five million in 2001 to nine million now. A fifth of families with

children now live in private rented housing.

Traditionally, the private rented sector has been seen primarily as a tenure for students and young professionals who are living in a city temporarily,

or are saving up for a deposit on their first home. However, the past decade saw huge changes in the dynamics of the housing market  which have resulted

in a more diverse private rented sector that cannot be dismissed as a niche housing “option”.

As house prices started rising again after the recession of early 1990s, some investors started seeing houses as a safe place to put their wealth. Investors

entering a market where the products are both a basic human need and in limited supply inevitably causes prices to go up. Rising house prices vindicated

the investors whilst attracting more.

By the early 2000s, when house prices were over five times the average income, the number of first time buyers started falling as they could no longer afford

to match the prices that investors were offering. More would-be homeowners became stuck in the private rented sector as landlords bought more properties

– essentially creating their own customers. Despite the financial crash of 2007-8 temporarily causing house prices to dip, the shortage of mortgage credit kept

first-time buyers in the rental sector –  and with nowhere else for people to go, buy- to- let continued to be a sound investment.

The private rented sector is no longer a stopgap for students, recent graduates and new arrivals living in flatshares with several housemates. A new ComRes

poll, commissioned by Generation Rent, finds that 67% of private renters would prefer to buy their home but cannot afford to do so”.

From: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/npto/pages/112/attachments/original/1396137884/Generation_Rent_Polling_Report.pdf?1396137884

- Back in '86/'87 I clearly recall colleagues at work complaining that it was not at all unusual for several 'friends' to club together to afford a property !  In fairness, I think the issue then was that you could 'only' borrow 3x the salary of a singleton or around 2x a maried joint income.

- 'Nice Mr Carney', has quite wisely in my opinion, introduced (April) forensic examination of incomes before a mortgage is sold.  A far more creative and prudent approach to putting the brakes on rather than putting up interest rates and triggering defaults when there are price rises.    

- Germany - renting has always been the norm. and something they are perfectly content with.  Though it has to be said that it is also the norm. for there to be a good landlord/tenant relation rather than exploiter/exploitee so commonly felt here.

- Italy - living in the family home until well into your thirties is apparently a long term norm.

My point is whether part of the problem, is one of expectation that the norm. in the UK is the expectation to get married, buy a house and start sprogging (in no particular order) and all in your early twenties.

Also, it may sound like a harsh judgement, but is the real issue planetary overpopulation?  And sadly until people 'get that' all the ensuing issues of climate change, housing shortages, prices, etc etc is simply a mathematical certainty playing into the hands of the 'haves'?  Goes back again to Mark Twain's, 'Buy land, they aren't making it anymore.'

Whilst I too agree with Mark Carney's forensic examination of incomes and the reasons why, the issue is that people who wish to own their own home cannot do so.

Not just because their income multiplied by 3 won't be enough but because their income muliplied by 10 probably wouldn't be enough! 

It may be the cultural norm in other European countries that people rent. Here it is not. I regard rent money as 'dead' money and maybe that is a cultural thing

as well in which case I won't be the only one who thinks that way. I think that home ownership and aspiration to homeownership is also a cultural 

aspect of this country.

Thing is, not everyone is subject to mortgage criteria in order to be able to buy. Like I said before, if you've got enough dosh of your own you can buy as

many houses as you can afford and then rent them out to those who cannot raise a mortgage. Not through any fault of their own but because of the supply/demand

ratio of houses available on the market which then impacts on prices.

So, private landlords have income stream (rent, some of which is paid for by us, the taxpayer, by way of Housing Benefit) and capital investment(s) property.

Who's laughing and at whose expense? (literally).  

Landlords pay some of the highest taxes in the country

Stamp duty, annual property tax or income tax

Then capital gains tax

In the 1950's rental tax was 99.25%

In 1970's it was about 75% today it's currently 40%

If I could type properly on ths forum I wuld pst a hole lot more SO ANNOYING

Well, if it is just sooooo awful Andysport and so apparently so unprofitable it really does beg the question of why has the private

rented sector taken off in such a big way then? I mean, if private sector landlords are so hit tax wise why are they in the private

rented sector game? Some, just some, I grant you might be in the business for altruistic reasons but the vast majority? Come off it.

If a profit wasn't to be had how many private sector landlords do you really think there would be?

Can you confirm that private sector landlords can claim their mortgage interest as a business expense for tax purposes.

'Metro' today - 'SAFE AS HOUSES ... UNLESS YOU RENT - Tenants are facing the worst eviction crisis in ten years as surging numbers of landlords try to force them from their homes.

'Generation rent' is living on a financial knife-edge, charities warned, after figures showed that 47,220 possession claims were lodged by lamdlords in the first three months of the year.

More than a quarter of those applications resulted in bailiffs knocking at the door to evict tenants.

.......Shelter said tenants were falling victim to revenge evictions if they complaained to their landlords, letting agents or council about problems such as leaking roofs, mould or damp.'

I can see the motivations and pressures specific to this country to want to have your own castle and nest egg instead of flushing money away on rent.  It does however also play into a number of other social issues such as families being less likely to care for their elderly (for example) due to ring fencing of living into nuclear pods, and under occupancy of houses fuelling the shortage.  

Under occupancy of houses. That's allowed in the private owner occupier sector but not in the public rented if you are so poor that you have to claim housing

benefit. Does the expression Bedroom Tax ring any bells?  

I used to have this fascination with owning my own home the last mortgage i had in the late 80s started at 7.5% and by 1990 was 15% my wages where not rising and my life revolved round that monthly payment interest rates where still rising and house prices falling.  Those years changed my outlook on home ownership and i decided to rent but decided to negotiate with landlords for long term rentals 5 to 10 years with fixed rental payments.  I have recently decided to have a change of scenery and move and have negotiated a 10 year deal at a fixed rate, landlords want good tenants who look after there property and pay on time every month and dont get a phone call every time a tap drips or a gutter is blocked as already mentioned renting is the norm in Germany so why not here.

@leatash - because we have an island mentality - everyone wants their own moat?  greed - no one wants to 'miss out' every time they hear prices are 'on the up'?

It's true what you say about landlords wanting good tenants - they always used to virtually beg me to stay on!!  In Germany they have an expression called 'Ordnung' where everything is orderly and proper, a bit like your arrangements.  Apparently tenants even do kitchen upgrades at their own expense, so am guessing that they too must negotiate fair long tenures.  In truth they do have a far lower percentage of old houses than the UK.....and I have never seen a poorly or cheaply built new house either!  Also, their salaries for 'normal jobs' are generally higher in the first place.  Yes, unfortunately this country is very densely populated with a 'dog eat dog' mentality  - Dawlish excepted - ref. Rock Cafe

@Lynne - yes 'bedroom tax' does ring a bell - may well be a 'tory waterloo' at some point.

The type of under occupancy I had in mind is where one or two retired people (I can thing of many examples I personally know) who live in 3, 4, 5 bedroom houses.  Obviously their private perogative entitles them to live in a 10bedroom house, own multiple properties etc if they so anti-socially please.  Just suggesting that arguably it doesn't help the housing shortage or prices as it creates an artificial pressure on demand which pushes up prices and pushes 'Generation rent' into rented or council properties. 

Yes agree that as it is their property it is their perogative to stay put if so desired. So.........hows about some financial incentives from the government to incentivise

such people to downsize and thus free up their property for others? As you say, by their underoccupying their property (ies), albeit their private property(ies), they

are aiding and abetting the present housing shortage.  

Lynne yes a landlord can deduct interest on mortgage payments from their rental income prior to taxation unless said landlord lives outside of the UK

If you hadn't guessed yes I'm a landloord of 29 years, there isprofit to be made just not as much as people think

If we got all the rent off the lousy good for nothing lazy tenants then the profit would be very goodd, anyone want to buy any houses/flats in the Midlaannnds

typin s hurrendus

This is an interesting link http://moneyfacts.co.uk/guides/buy-to-let/tax-on-buy-to-let-property-and-income290312/ it gives

details of private landlords' tax liabilities and  how they can be offset (the tax liabilities that is not the landlords) .  

Good link Lynne.  Ref. financial incentives to increase occupancy - how about an incentive by modest inheritence tax relief if you can demonstrate high occupancy in a privately owned house that you live in.  Gets around the old kernel of retired people saying that higher council tax bands are unfair because they may be property rich but cash poor?  The payback for the gov't getting less in inheritence tax take would be less of a housing crisis.

How would, say, a couple, in a four bedroom house demonstrate high occupancy? By having lodgers for example? There is already a scheme (forget its name) that

allows a certain amount of tax relief on income earned from lodgers' rents.

Not sure how an increase in 'spare' bed occupancy would help those people wishing to buy their own place but unable to do so because of high cost.

Sorry, don't mean to be so negative (have had disturbed night with greyhound with broken leg so maybe I've misunderstood your post.)

Still, I sort of like your logic. One of the reasons put forward for the Bedroom Tax was (is) that there are many people waiting to be housed in the social

housing sector. So, if there are also lots of people waiting to be housed as owner occupiers........... 

Also, the other reason for the BT was(is) that the government wanted to reduce the Benefit bill. Well then, if houses prices fall and rents fall then more people

will be able to buy and more people will not need to claim HB in order to pay their rent. Less people renting and less people claiming HB in order to pay

their rent and Bingo! the Benefits bill is reduced.

Now  to me that is such an obvious solution that I cannot for the life of me think why the government hasn't pursued any course of action in order to achieve that

end..............

Just come across this. It's from today's Guardian  http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/10/generation-rent-whos-listening-private-rental-market-ed-miliband

from our MP's website:

"A third of the cases Anne Marie is asked to help constituents with relate to housing. There is too little housing stock to meet

demand locally and the private rented sector is difficult and expensive to access".

Apologies in advance. Yes, I know this is a long thread and that I've put a lot of postings on it and I had promised myself

that I would give it a rest for a while but then I was reading the Sunday Telegraph online and an article about housing and

then I started to read the comments underneath the article and then I read this particular comment and then......oh well.......

read it for yourselves. 

• "It is hardly surprising that we have a housing crisis. The percentage of income spent on housing and the age at
• which young people can afford to buy has risen to alarming levels over the past 30 or so years and it is not about
• to get any better, in fact it is getting rapidly worse. Right now we are in the process of exacerbating the problem but
• it will be another 5-10 years before we see by just how much. The problem is really not that difficult to understand.
• We do not build anywhere near enough houses. Simple market economics, if a product cannot meet demand the
• price rises. Why are we in this situation? Having been closely associated with land allocation for housing I could
• write a book, however to try and keep it simple. Housing is controlled by local politicians. Housing, especially large
• scale housing, is politically highly sensitive. Propose a housing site almost anywhere in the Uk and an instant rash
• of well organised and vociferous Nimbys appear like a plague of biblical proportions, holding the sword of Damocles
• over the heads of generally spineless local councillors, at least it looks like that if you are a vote dependent councillor.
• A debate then ensues between those seeking to protect their own interests and the politicians, who in our modern
• democracy, have lost the ability to lead a debate and simply produce policies that placate the voluble objectors,
• regardless of the effect on the large silent minority - our children and grandchildren, including those yet to be born!
• Worse neither they or the objectors have any interest in seeing house prices decline, which would be the result of
• building enough house for all, as they are already on the ladder. Right now the government have managed to produce 
• an environment where by local politicians are seriously playing politics with this very real and immediate problem. My
• own local authority having undertaken a long and expensive investigation into the number of houses required to meet
• the lowest levels of local demand, were told they needed to provided sufficient land for 675 new houses a year.
• Instead they voted for 575 in order to reduce the negative political impact and this was after delaying the decision by
• at least 5 years just for political gain. They made the decision in the full knowledge that in a few years, yes the
• process takes many years, central government would overturn their decision at an examination in public, enabling
• them to face local objectors and say they had done their best to resist the much needed houses and blame central
• government for forcing more on the locality! In the meantime years of lower than optimum numbers of houses are
• being built. The planning process that delivers housing is tortuously long and complicated so as soon as one
• allocation is made the next begins and the whole process grinds on for another 10 years, all the while under
• delivering on known requirements. Perhaps the true irony is that the entire decision making process is undertaken
• by people who have very largely little if any genuine interest in seeing masses of new houses provided (apologies to
• the few who really do care and try to make a difference). Those future generations who are going to need the houses
• and will have to allocate an ever increasingly large portion of their incomes, just to put a roof over their heads, are
• totally absent from the debate, worse, most have no idea the debate even exists. If we can't change the system and
• remove it from the control of small minded local politicians and unrepresentative pressure groups, then somehow we
• need to mobilise the voting power of the 18-30 some things who will be the victims of our failed system of land
• allocation for housing. Oh and please don't take any notice of the MP's who make grandiose statements about extra
• housing. As so many other scandals highlight, this is the age of the career politician. They have elevated the art of
• smoke and mirrors to extraordinary levels. Their approach enables them to appear very proactive while actually
• delivering little where it really counts, on the ground. After all only a career politician would maintain that paying the
• local council a bonus for building houses would encourage local communities to accept more housing! Yes, honestly,
• that is almost the entire rationale behind the New Homes Bonus, which in reality few members of the public know
• anything about. In the meantime local authorities up and down the Uk are secreting away vast sums of bonus money.
• Don't believe me? Make a freedom of information request to your local district, borough, unitary or metropolitan
• council and ask them how much New Homes Bonus they have received in the past 4 years, how much they forecast
• they will receive in the next 5 years and what it is/will be used for. My local authority have received £2.5 million in just
• 2 years, equivalent to around 20% of their total annual income, they forecast annual receipts will double from this year 
• and it is all sitting in their reserves!"