You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
We live in one of the most nature depleted countries on earth have a quick read of this paper which seems to be alarming some ecologists.
TLDR, What little nugget have you spotted that the rest of the country hadn't had the time to?
NO in a word.
The reason we are nature depleted is far more to do with agricultural practices and "sporting" estates than house building. 6% of land in the UK is built on
A small increase in the amount of built on land is insignificant and can be mediated as the paper suggests
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901294
Is this like one of those newspaper headlines where you already know the answer is going to be "no"?
I'm not reading your link if you can't be arsed to type more than a line yourself, but increased building on green belt will obviously have a negative impact on some local environments - and the "grey belt" land Labour talk about is just spin IMO - but the supply of homes is an issue that needs dealing with.
The main thing is to ensure enough are affordable.
TBH I'm struggling OP, the paper appears to be focussed on addressing environmental protections while acknowledging the government policy of accelerating housing development.
I skipped to the end and skimmed the worked examples which seem to be suggesting that they specifically don't want planning applications to steamroll or shortcut environmental impact assessment or take away the need for developers to propose and implement mitigations.
Like I said I haven't read the whole thing, but it doesn't initially read like the terrifying warrant to murder the environment that your thread title suggests, just a civil service (DEFRA) prepared reference for policy development and feedback... Why don't you write to your MP if you're concerned?
The reason I posted this is there is a suggestion that the plan is to make it easier to have changes around how protected species are treated hence Angela Rainers talk about newts.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/08/prioritise-peoples-needs-over-newts-in-housing-policy-says-angela-rayner
A lot of these planning reforms seem to be under the radar and not discussed.
Our local labour councilors go very quiet when asked about housing development.
We need more houses but there is lots of nature depleted land around cities.
6% of land in the UK is built on
Is that a useful statistic?
There's some large areas where that statistic will be much higher for that area, and some where it'll be much lower. I live somewhere were development is going on all around us, but it's okay, as it's just fields. People don't seem to care that much and these places is where development is like bacteria in a petri-dish.
There's a few things at play here
1. Building on green belt land that has no environmental or social benefit. There's a lot of green belt land that is wasteland in many definitions but can't be built on because of an arbitrary line that was drawn years ago
2. Protected species - they're quite often used by nimbys or other developers to prevent developments, even when they're not affected by a development. I've only skim read, but the gist is that if a protected species is not going to be affected they can crack on with the building project. You get examples where a newt might be in a body of water 100m+ away, beyond a natural boundary to their habitat but it would fall in the planning guidelines. This is saying use common sense
Tldr - no they're not trying to destroy the environment, they're actually being more logical about where to build.
I once saw Angela Rayner taking a disposable barbecue and a bottle of Lambrini onto the moorland above Rivington in the middle of summer
A lot of these planning reforms seem to be under the radar and not discussed.
Our local labour councilors go very quiet when asked about housing development.
We need more houses but there is lots of nature depleted land around cities.
Planning is a national policy enacted at a local level. It's very emotive so I'm not surprised the councillors go quiet, especially as the new rules from national government haven't been cascaded yet.
There's also a decent amount of time needed to map out the new areas for development
My observations, it's not going to happen as it isn't in the interest of builders and there isn't the labour to do it. More realistic observations, what will they do around Neo-nics, fox hunting, grouse moors, badger culling, etc.
No to your initial question OP. What needs to happen, is for affordable bloody housing to be built. Every development around here has prices that start at over £260k apart from the shared ownership scams that start at around £190k.
what will they do around Neo-nics, fox hunting, grouse moors, badger culling, etc.
This. They also need to do something about water quality, and some of this stuff is relatively quick wins that might reduce the youth drifting to the Greens?
Funny, innit.
The UK: "We need more affordable housing!"
Also the UK: "We don't want you to build more affordable housing!"
On the topic of ecology, I heard that the Earth recently took on a slightly more eccentric orbit due to Erwin Schrodinger spinning in his grave.
Oh, wait, I know the answer to this one. "We want more affordable housing. Just, somewhere else. Not here, obviously. We're full up round here."
There's a few issues at play.
We seem to have a lot of 1-2 bedroom 'apartments' and 5 bedroom 'executive' homes, but very little in between - there's a good argument that we need a lot more medium density building (e.g. mansion blocks) near transport infrastructure, which doesn't take up that much land.
But of course the (often wealthy, often retired) people who object to everything will object as it will 'put pressure on GPs/schools' because it doesn't matter what it is, they'll object. You'd assume these people would look at their children and grandchildren struggling to find decent housing and think a bit harder, but the evidence of Brexit was that it doesn't work like that.
It would help of course if there was more of a connection between increasing council tax receipts and better public services, but thanks to austerity councils are largely a device for moving public money to private care and emergency housing providers...
Is that a useful statistic?
If we are looking at the whole of the UK yes. It shows how little building actually impacts on the state of the environment. Mitigation of ill effects from building are possible, much greater environmental benefits could be achieved by measures to reverse the degradation in rural areas
I'm more concerned that large developments are planned in line with 15 minute cities ideology, and prioritise bus, walking and cycle infrastructure for local journeys.
There is a highrise proposed near me for over 125 flats, and a large development opposite (400 homes) has just received outline planning, the town already suffers from grid lock most afternoons and apparently they've already suggested there will be no affordable homes due to the cleanup cost of a small industrial estate (majority of the site is greenfield)
There is some mention of a shuttle bus service for the first two years but feels like they need to make a proper effort to make it work, such as offering cut price ebikes with every house sale, dedicated bike storage and cycle links to town.
@spooky_b329 In theory Active Travel England should be consulted on that (assuming you're in England…). It's probably also worth writing to councillors/MPs asking about walking/cycling infra and why the developers are bing let off the hook on affordable homes.
I also think it's worth getting involved in your local active travel campaign group, however peripherally (the 80/20 rule definitely applies, but even relatively inactive members allow campaign groups to say "we represent X people locally")
At the moment developers have to show that the environmental mitigation for their development is greater than what was lost (biodiversity net gain).
This is often not implemented well, because the developers tend to cut corners on the mitigation and plant different trees than those specified for planning etc, or just not doing what they promised. They get away with this because the councils don't enforce planning properly.
The paper I posted a link to is suggesting that instead of providing mitigation on or near the site thay can now pay up to the government and the mitigation can happen as part of a scheme else where.
Couple this with wanting to build on small sites in cities it means that the areas people live in could be more nature depleted than they are now. I am concerned that people who live in cities might get to the point that local green space is very minimal and overused.
The paper I posted a link to is suggesting that instead of providing mitigation on or near the site thay can now pay up to the government and the mitigation can happen as part of a scheme else where.
Hate to break it to you but you can do that already.
But why is it a bad thing? You can focus BNG on the areas that it can have significant benefit rather than forcing it into areas of development where it can get crowded out later, you can do intensive development to limit the extent of the building sites?
Offsite BNG credited schemes are eye wateringly expensive to implement so anything that can be delivered onsite will be done 1st.
Very much doubt they're going to wreck the environment any more than it's already wrecked and would expect the direction of travel to be the opposite generally.
However I do think high house prices are predominantly a south east problem so any easing of environmental protections in order to facilitate more house building should be limited to that region.
What I fear happening is new houses being dumped on areas that don't really need them, especially poorer areas where people aren't very engaged with the planning process so low quality developments are more likely to get through without objections.
Those areas will have scores of cheap new ghetto-ish estates built with insufficient infrastructure and amenities, worsening conditions for people who live there for no reason other than to hit an arbitrary national target, which will do nothing to solve the south east's problem.
But of course the (often wealthy, often retired) people who object to everything will object as it will ‘put pressure on GPs/schools’ because it doesn’t matter what it is, they’ll object.
They're also not above dusting off l old reports of rare lizards or ground nesting birds if it suits their needs.
Use of environmental concerns just to bolster NIMBYism should be challenged, but not dismissed out of hand, and not at the expense of actual environmental concerns. I think that's what Raynor was trying to get at (without upsetting the people who will obviously be upset however you pitch it).
I’m more concerned that large developments are planned in line with 15 minute cities ideology, and prioritise bus, walking and cycle infrastructure for local journeys.
It's notable that this is a DEFRA document, thus focussed on rural settings. I would expect other departments to be providing more input on urban planning, the priorities and impacts will differ depending on where a given development is proposed. This isn't the only paper being published (at least I don't think it is) on the topic. Expanding and redeveloping existing towns and cities is different to building on green/brown/grey belt land, but no less fraught...
I'm more encouraged that they're actually trying to develop a set of policies around housing where the previous lot just gave us promises and rhetoric without much action. But the proof is still in the pudding, the aims are big and the timeframe is short, that does lend some credence to the OP's concerns.
Sorry haven't read the article.
No green belt should be built on. It all serves a purpose even if it looks like scrub/waste land.
Around here quite a few houses have been built on brownfield sites, brilliant, however these are not starter or affordable homes. Most are executive, 4/5 bedroom home and have 3 and in some cases 4 wcs.
Green belt is always easier to build on and people think oh, it's only a field. There are many. many places that can be changed into residential properties, eg, in our area there are a lot of old mills, some are small and could easily be turned into first time homes for young folks,
Oh and here we go again blaming old people/pensioners for everything. Most of the pensioners I know are helping their Children and grandchildren and the others are too poor.
However what I do see are - a lot of elderly people still living in their family homes (often with 4 bedrooms) on their own. Many because they feel safe and have decent neighbours and a good support network around them. So I don't know what the answer if for this.
But I am absolutely, totally against building on greenbelt. It's imperative we keep it for future generations. And before I get lambasted our semi is built on an old coal yard.
However I do think high house prices are predominantly a south east problem so any easing of environmental protections in order to facilitate more house building should be limited to that region.
No. What we need to be doing is sorting out the fact that the UK is one of the most centralised countries in Europe, and the massive imbalance in the economy that makes people want to move to the South East, and don't forget that e.g. water supplies in the SE are already marginal.
A massive brake on the economy outside London is the generally dire public transport infrastructure.
Oh, wait, I know the answer to this one. “We want more affordable housing. Just, somewhere else. Not here, obviously. We’re full up round here.”
Yet somehow those new estates of ‘executive’ homes, with ‘starting’ prices upwards of half a million, still get built. Planning permission never seems to be an issue there
@ratherbeintobago absolutely nails it! I don’t think people in the south east and The Golden City in the Hill have the remotest idea of just how literally crumbling and decaying the entire infrastructure is in other areas of the country.
No. What we need to be doing is sorting out the fact that the UK is one of the most centralised countries in Europe, and the massive imbalance in the economy that makes people want to move to the South East, and don’t forget that e.g. water supplies in the SE are already marginal.
A massive brake on the economy outside London is the generally dire public transport infrastructure.
That's a fine idea but will take many years after the serious planning starts to deliver any meaningful progress, and the serious planning hasn't started nor does it show any signs of starting soon.
So in the meantime I maintain that any loosening of planning or environmental protections to support house building should be limited to the south east. You will not solve the south east's housing crisis by rushing to concrete over some fields near Middlesbrough in order to hit some arbitrary national target. If anything that will just exacerbate regional inequalities.
@binners Funny how the developers also always seem to find a way out of weaselling out of building any other stuff e.g. affordable housing, AT infra, etc that were conditions of planning for the executive’ homes?
You will not solve the south east’s housing crisis by rushing to concrete over some fields near Middlesbrough in order to hit some arbitrary national target. If anything that will just exacerbate regional inequalities.
The south east isn’t the only place that desperately needs new affordable housing. The present system is absolutely nuts though. Take Manchester. There’s building taking place all over the city. Big shiny glass and chrome tower after big, shiny glass and chrome tower, everywhere you look.
Do you know what percentage of those new ‘homes’ are bought, off-plan, by foreign investors before a brick has even been laid?
85%!
A lot will sit empty, the rest rented out at extortionate rates. The whole system is ****ed! At least the government is acknowledging that there’s a problem, instead of listening exclusively to whining nimby boomers
It doesn't have to be like that. Edinburgh ( which has one of the most incompetent and corrupt councils around) has been undergoing massive expansion. the Granton waterfront development is a long term project building huge amounts of housing on mainly brownfield sites. So far planning gain ( stuff developers have to do to get planning) has built us new schools, doctors surgeries, cycleways, parks, and delivered a lot of affordable housing
@binners IIRC a lot of the shiny towers aren't mortgageable - they're explicitly buy-to-let. But again, in GM there's little medium density building near e.g. Metrolink stops.
For an example of transport, it's only recently that Burnley has had a direct rail connection to Manchester - this creates an opportunity cost as lack of decent transport means people can't get a better job without moving; running a car is more expensive than it's given credit for and time spent sat in traffic jams due to lack of alternative is both soul-destroying and economically unproductive.
@roli_case The problem is that the SE is already pretty environmentally deplete (and e.g. chalk streams are significantly endangered), and as I said above there are significant resource issues, to the point where they're considering a massive reservoir in Oxfordshire as there isn't enough water.
But I am absolutely, totally against building on greenbelt. It’s imperative we keep it for future generations.
That smacks of immigrant families who came to UK 30 years ago not wanting any more immigration. All the land was greenbelt as some point and using some of the 94% is no loss to anyone and the future generations will have more to worry about than whether they have 90 or 92% of greenbelt land left.
Manctopia is no longer available on iplayer, unfortunately . It was a great documentary showing in no uncertain how utterly dysfunctional the housing market in the UK now is.
If you set out to design a system that was totally unfit for purpose, you couldn’t do a better job. It seems like the entire system is set up to exclusively benefit property developers and investors. Whether any actual ‘homes’ get built or not doesn’t even seem to figure in the equation
The big housing developers are past-masters at running rings around hapless, under-resourced local planners - they have get out clauses in their commitments to affordable housing, ecological measures which all get left to the end and ‘oops, we can’t make enough profit so we’re scrapping these’. The Tories were totally in-hoc with the big developers plus deliberately starving councils of money so they couldn’t take effective action anyway.
The problem is that the SE is already pretty environmentally deplete (and e.g. chalk streams are significantly endangered), and as I said above there are significant resource issues, to the point where they’re considering a massive reservoir in Oxfordshire as there isn’t enough water.
Are there any stats on environmental depletion by region? I'd be surprised if the south east is any worse than elsewhere given other parts of the country have had their fair share of industrialisation, coal mining, intense agriculture, incinerators, fossil fuel power stations and the like.
There hasn't been a new reservoir built in the south east for nearly half a century, while several have been built elsewhere in the country, so if we're measuring environmental destruction by the need for new reservoirs then the south east has done very well. Not sure reservoir demand really tells us much though other than that the population has grown.
Greenbelt was 'put aside', to make sure cities and towns didn't just merge into one great big sprawling concrete jungle (a bit like Los Angeles). It helps prevent flooding, provides cleaner air, habitats for wildlife and most fauna and flora. It contains ancient woodland, places of recreation for humans and domesticated pets. It's not just there to look pretty. We humans are not instead of nature we are part of it and everything will always come down to money in the end. IMO it's extremely precious. Since covid the use of outdoor spaces has risen dramatically and is more needed now than ever.
The property developers think it's fine to fill in the odd pond, chop down some trees and replace with a few feeble saplings that will only be of benefit in 30 - 70 years time.
Some of the brownfield sites are a lot more diverse than the large farmers field in the green belt.
Wot Bruce said.
in our area there are a lot of old mills, some are small and could easily be turned into first time homes for young folks
Mill developments are great. Tend to require sale prices higher than for new build though, they are not often a route towards affordable housing (but should be developed anyway, for those that can afford it).
However I do think high house prices are predominantly a south east problem so any easing of environmental protections in order to facilitate more house building should be limited to that region.
Having a laff, aren’t you? Check house prices in and around Chippenham, relatively new, not particularly spectacular 4-bed houses are £440,000, my 3-bed semi, formerly a council house built around 80 years ago, is getting on for £250,000, I’ve no idea what the 3-400 new houses are going for, but Chippenham’s position on the main rail line between London and Bristol, and a line down to the south coast, plus it’s close to the M4, and it’s on the A4/A420/A350/A429 road nexus, so it attracts people who aren’t too concerned about commuting.
There are some areas of affordable housing but not many. Mainly a few towns in northern England. Its way beyond a south east issue.
Chippenham is waaaaay down south tho 🙂
However I do think high house prices are predominantly a south east problem so any easing of environmental protections in order to facilitate more house building should be limited to that region.
Absolute nonsense. We're having a few days away in a 2 bed cottage outside Scarborough. Rightmove suggests it's about £200k. We are both in relatively senior public sector jobs on about average wage, that's over 3 times our salaries. How the **** are local people meant to afford it? And it's the same where we live in in the East Midlands, our friends around the country report the same issues as our kids start leaving the nest.
i dont see how labour is goin to wreck the environment,after all the damage the previous govt has done.
Ive seen a few badger setts that have been annihilated by new builds, and farmers
flood plains are being built on down here, but still there's -is it 97%?- of land owned by the very rich, so how are we supposed to deal with a growing population utilizin only the remaining 13%? its as if we dont own the country!
£200 000 for a two bed cottage - bargainacious!
This is the cheapest house for sale in ~Edinburgh right now. 2 bed ex council £180 000 in a pretty rough ( but not as bad as it was) part of the city
https://espc.com/property/50-peacocktail-close-newcraighall-edinburgh-eh15-3qs/36275797?sid=681334
However what I do see are – a lot of elderly people still living in their family homes (often with 4 bedrooms) on their own. Many because they feel safe and have decent neighbours and a good support network around them. So I don’t know what the answer if for this.
In a word or two, stamp duty, inheritance tax* & bungalows being relatively expensive. In addition to all the issues you raise.
* no one seemed to raise the issue of owners of some more expensive houses getting preferential inheritance tax treatment when the farms issue arose, wonder why that was?
Ah - I only looked on espc
wonder why that is so cheap - never seen anything so cheap in Edinburgh
needs full refurbishment and looks like serious water damage as well
I am very much of the opinion that no agricultural land should be built on ever. Even here in the FoD we have farmers fields being turned into housing estates and industrial wastelands being left empty. Of course the sad state of our agriculture doesn't help.
When we whinge about all the high priced housing I wonder how many of us actually make the problem worse with our silly demands, FFS how the hell does a family of 4 need more than 3 bedrooms (many of us grew up sharing a room) or two bogs and bathrooms. Plain greedy. Of course we are a selfish nation.
Alric. "we" don't own the country. The owners do. That is how it has worked for thousands of years.
I assume that you will be one of those to donate all your property to the nation so as to set an example.
Hmm
However I do think high house prices are predominantly a south east problem
You know that house prices and mortgage rates effect those of us who privately rent too. Not just home owners.
You may want to check up on average rents in and around Manchester. A mate of mine just had his rent doubled by the landlord, so had to move yet further out of town, This is now pretty standard around this neck of the woods. Not London or the south east.. Why? Because they can.
How the **** are you meant to save for a deposit if you’re paying over half your salary in rent every month? Home ownership within Greater Manchester is simply completely out of reach of a huge swathe of the population who will end up paying vastly inflated rents for the rest of their lives
Another problem that needs addressing is second home ownership, especially if it’s a holiday home. I’m not jealous or envious. It seems odd that someone should have 2 homes when there are others who can’t even find one.
Also do up empty properties with the aid of grants.
our own house was a doer upper. It’s the only way we could have afforded it.
the whole housing market rental and buying is engineered to transfer money from the poor to the rich. I have benefited hugely from this and I understand how lucky I am and try not to abuse it.
Property inflation compared to salary is absurd. MY flat cost 2.5 times my salary when bought. Now its 10 times the salary for that job. I rented it for two years before I bought it off the landlord. the market rent for it now is 3 times what it was then but the salary for that job has only gone up 50% ( I have improved it a lot tho)
How anyone starting out now can afford to buy or even rent I just do not know. As a nurse there is no chance to buy in Edinburgh now and I would have to rent a room in a flat not a whole flat
The situation is even worse if you are on benefits. The gap between what you get in benefits and what a flat costs to rent is huge
Solutions? Massive house building programme including council houses that cannot be sold. Rent controls, taxation on profits from rentals. crash the effing housing market.
What is really sick IMO is I could rent out the two flats I own at market rents, and use that income to pay a loan to buy another house - and I would not only have another property paid for by my tenants but would still make a significant income on top of the loan repayments. Thats just wrong. Utterly sickening to live in a society where basic housing is used to reinforce inequality
is engineered to transfer money from the poor to the rich.
It's not engineered, that suggests some sort of deliberate intent, but It is exactly what happens. Inheritance also plays a large part in concentrating wealth within families.
We do need a lot more houses being built, it's lack of supply that has pushed prices for rent and buy well out of kilter with wages, and limits on what people can borrow.
I'm happy enough with right to buy as long as each house soldmis replaced quickly with the proceeds.
I stand by "its engineered" Government policy has been to encourage house price inflation as it keeps the middle classes happy and feeling rich.
Right to buy is always at a huge discount - you cannot rebuild with the proceeds and many of those properties end up in the hands of private landlords letting to folk on benefits at a far higher rent than a council property would be
Having a laff, aren’t you? Check house prices in and around Chippenham
Absolute nonsense... Scarborough
Granted the definition of the south east for this purpose needs to be anywhere within a commuting distance of London, and the south in general is quite expensive. But see the colour coded average price map about half way down the below link, almost all of the red is in a specific cluster in and around London.
There is almost no red whatsoever north of the Watford gap, but who would bet against that being where most of the green belt is built over?
Absolute nonsense. We’re having a few days away in a 2 bed cottage outside Scarborough. Rightmove suggests it’s about £200k. We are both in relatively senior public sector jobs on about average wage, that’s over 3 times our salaries. How the **** are local people meant to afford it?
I've had a quick look on Rightmove and seems to be a good selection of 2-bed terraces in Scarborough for less than £130k. The one below is £125k and looks fine as a starter home to me.
Minimum wage is around £24k now so even a single person on minimum wage, applying a 4.5x multiplier could get a mortgage for £107k. A couple both working should be able to afford that quite easily.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/154844411
a 4.5 multiplier - completely unaffordable payments on minimum wage
Home ownership within Greater Manchester is simply completely out of reach of a huge swathe of the population who will end up paying vastly inflated rents for the rest of their lives
Not to bore everybody by repeating myself but again, quick look on Rightmove and there are no end of houses in Bolton for less than £140k, many less than £120k.
The problem is that with arbitrary national targets, most of the new houses and the environmental destruction will be in places like Bolton, where it's easier to get big developments through planning. If people aren't willing to move to Bolton from Manchester now, they won't be when the new houses are built either, so it won't solve the problem for those people who for whatever reason can't or won't leave the premium parts of the city.
Your idea of "affordable" is not realistic at all.
If you work in manchester the extra cost of a commute from Bolton would add extra costs that make it - guess what - unnaffordable even if you could scrape together a mortgage
a 4.5 multiplier – completely unaffordable payments on minimum wage
Disagree, minimum wage takes home is about £1.6k - £1.7k
Repayments on a £107k mortgage at 4.5% for 30 years are £542.
That seems quite comfortable to me.
The hardest part would be saving the deposit, so they might have to go for a 95% mortgage.
Most people buy as a couple which would make it much easier.
I am very much of the opinion that no agricultural land should be built on ever.
That's approximately 65% of all land use in the UK, meaning that all new additional housing is more and more squeezed into a smaller area. It's unsustainable.
Your idea of “affordable” is not realistic at all.
If you work in manchester the extra cost of a commute from Bolton would add extra costs that make it – guess what – unnaffordable even if you could scrape together a mortgage
It's what, 10 miles from Bolton to central Manchester? How much is a bus pass? If there isn't a cheap and safe way of travelling those ten miles then that sounds like a problem that should be solved before building more and more houses that aren't really needed?
I do fear that a presumption to allow building is going to lead to a free for all where each case on its own appears to not be impactful but the sum of all schemes will cause harm. The best thing for our housing shortfall would be to try and get away from the "our home is our castle" mentality which means we feel obliged to build vast estates of small detached houses with postage stamp gardens. Low rise but spacious apartment developments would be a far more efficient use of land.
If you work in manchester the extra cost of a commute from Bolton would add extra costs that make it – guess what – unnaffordable even if you could scrape together a mortgage
It’s less than £30 a week for an annual season ticket. This is easily offset by lower housing costs no?
That seems quite comfortable to me.
You forgot insurance, council tax and the extra cost of the commute you want the person to do. Add in those and you have less than a couple of hundred a week to live on. Now add in energy bills as well.
How is someone living paycheck to paycheck supposed to save a deposit? Pay for the costs of buying?
You forgot insurance, council tax and the extra cost of the commute you want the person to do. Add in those and you have less than a couple of hundred a week to live on. Now add in energy bills as well.
How is someone living paycheck to paycheck supposed to save a deposit? Pay for the costs of buying?
They're taking home £1.7k and spending £542 on the mortgage so have £1.1k left for everything else.
You're suggesting that after insurance, council tax and a bus or train ticket they'll only have a couple of hundred left, implying you think insurance, council tax and a bus or train ticket is going to cost £900 per month?
I think that's inaccurate. I'd say it's probably closer to £300 for those things. Energy bills another £120. Water about £30. Repairs and maintenance at say 1% of the house value per year so £100 per month.
What else? They've still got £600 left.
less than a couple of hundred a week
so the cheapest house in a cheap area is just about affordable if you scrimp and accept a long commute.
And you think that shows that the affordability issue is not real.
End buy to let interest only mortgages, introduce rent controls, give renters security of tenure.
Watch the panic as buy to let "investors" realise that they can't build a property empire on the misery of tenants.
@tj I think i'd describe it as fairly comfortably affordable to a single person buying alone while earning the minimum wage, which is a well below average position to be in.
I think what it shows is that building thousands more houses on greenbelt around Bolton, which might have the effect of making those 120k houses slightly cheaper again, does not really solve the problem people want to be solved, namely making houses in more desirable areas less expensive.
I guess if you're keen on your prime real estate remaining prime, you'd only want new houses being built in cheap areas though? There seems to be a lot of that around me, where proposals to build more houses in the more expensive areas are met with vociferous opposition, while proposals to build more in areas where houses are already less expensive get through without problems.
End buy to let interest only mortgages, introduce rent controls, give renters security of tenure.
Watch the panic as buy to let “investors” realise that they can’t build a property empire on the misery of tenants.
Is the right answer - along with ramping up taxation on the income from rentals, a massive building programme of state owned housing at fair rents
We need to crash the housing market.
I think i’d describe it as fairly comfortably affordable to a single person buying alone while earning the minimum wage, which is a well below average position to be in.
Really? I don't think anyone in that position would. They would be living a very marginal and precarious existence
this is also an extreme example of a very cheap house in a very cheap area. Now look at two public servants living in an average or expensive area.
Anyone that thinks buying a house on minimum wage is affordable either hasn't ever tried living on the minimum wage or is just plain delusional. I spent most of my working life on minimum wage (or less) and I'm now fortunate enough to earn a good living. I'm on just under £50k with two young kids and Mrs F working part time.
We need to move to a three bed house in the next couple of years and it simply isn't achievable. I'm saving what I can towards a pension for both of us, building a general safety net and trying to put money aside towards a deposit for a three bed.
If we moved somewhere cheaper, our combined commuting costs would kill any savings made. I cycle to work most days now which makes my working day around 12 hours with the commute. We'll likely end up with me and Mrs F sleeping in the living room. This isn't me complaining. We're better off than a lot of people. House prices are just ****ing nuts to be blunt. We could only afford this house by moving in with Mrs F's parents for a few years and saving every penny.
I've no idea what world some of you on here live in but you really need to understand just how privileged you are.
Minimum wage after tax is £1632
Pension
Electricity
Heating
Transport
Insurance
Food
Phone/Internet
Council Tax (£1348 I think)
Household items/furniture/goods repair/replacement
Household repairs/replacements (windows/doors/roof etc etc)
Kids
Clothes
Probably some other stuff
Then what you have is your accommodation pot.