Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
The National Trust leases a lot of land to farmers and therefore the public don't have access beyond rights of way.rjsterry said:
It's a pretty big point. The romanticised idea of the Green Belt is not the reality. It's not maintained as a recreation area. There are specific land owners like the National Trust, etc. that make a point of public access.TheBigBean said:
Did you see I added another paragraph to cover off precisely this point?rjsterry said:
The vast majority of green belt land is private with no public access. Fields are generally brown and empty at this time of year. Farmland is not maintained for recreation.TheBigBean said:
Why not? If I live in the sticks and have a nice green field next to me that I walk my dog in every day*, why can't I object to plans to build on it on the same basis?kingstongraham said:
Not really, no.TheBigBean said:To play devil's advocate, I think he lives close to Talacre Gardens (a park). I think he would object to that green space being built on. Isn't a green belt a similar concept?
*Yes, I know this can only be done if there is a footpath which would be retained in the event of a development, but nonetheless I think walking a dog along a footpath in a field is better than walking through an estate.
All of that said, there are a lot of footpaths, and I think footpaths are better through green fields.
This is Prudent Passage in the City. It's fine and offers the public a right of way, but it's not my first choice for how like rights of way.
0 -
Precisely.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I keep making this point. New housing is great but how much of it is affordable? The reality is you are looking at £250-300k for an average house in the UK. If you are single or joint family household with an income under £50k, getting a mortgage is nigh on impossible. If you don't have 15-20% deposit at present you are also very unlikely to get a mortgage.
I don't see any targeted plans to build houses at varying levels of affordability, taking into account regional salaries, single buyers, families with incomes under £40k etc. Surely building houses is only a piece of the puzzle, if you build houses only small percentages of the population can afford, how are you going to solve a housing crisis?
There is zero point in building new houses to be sold at £500k+. Or even £250k.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
A developer will be doing well to complete a house for less than £200,000. Assuming they are trying to make a profit, it's going to be difficult to bridge that gap to earnings, but there will at least be property available.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I keep making this point. New housing is great but how much of it is affordable? The reality is you are looking at £250-300k for an average house in the UK. If you are single or joint family household with an income under £50k, getting a mortgage is nigh on impossible. If you don't have 15-20% deposit at present you are also very unlikely to get a mortgage.
I don't see any targeted plans to build houses at varying levels of affordability, taking into account regional salaries, single buyers, families with incomes under £40k etc. Surely building houses is only a piece of the puzzle, if you build houses only small percentages of the population can afford, how are you going to solve a housing crisis?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The National Planning Policy Framework (applies to England) has a definition of affordable housing which is as follows:MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:I keep making this point. New housing is great but how much of it is affordable? The reality is you are looking at £250-300k for an average house in the UK. If you are single or joint family household with an income under £50k, getting a mortgage is nigh on impossible. If you don't have 15-20% deposit at present you are also very unlikely to get a mortgage.
I don't see any targeted plans to build houses at varying levels of affordability, taking into account regional salaries, single buyers, families with incomes under £40k etc. Surely building houses is only a piece of the puzzle, if you build houses only small percentages of the population can afford, how are you going to solve a housing crisis?
Affordable housing: housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by the market (including housing that provides a subsidised route to home ownership and/or isfor essential local workers); and which complies with one or more of the followingdefinitions:
a) Affordable housing for rent: meets all of the following conditions: (a) the rent is set
in accordance with the Government’s rent policy for Social Rent or Affordable Rent, or isat least 20% below local market rents (including service charges where applicable); (b)
the landlord is a registered provider, except where it is included as part of a Build to
Rent scheme (in which case the landlord need not be a registered provider); and (c) it
includes provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. For Build to Rent schemes affordable housing for rent is expected to be the normal form of affordable housing provision (and, in this context, is known as Affordable Private Rent).
b) Starter homes: is as specified in Sections 2 and 3 of the Housing and Planning Act
2016 and any secondary legislation made under these sections. The definition of a
starter home should reflect the meaning set out in statute and any such secondary
legislation at the time of plan-preparation or decision-making. Where secondary
legislation has the effect of limiting a household’s eligibility to purchase a starter home to those with a particular maximum level of household income, those restrictions should be used.
c) Discounted market sales housing: is that sold at a discount of at least 20% below
local market value. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Provisions should be in place to ensure housing remains at a discount for future eligible households.
d) Other affordable routes to home ownership: is housing provided for sale that
provides a route to ownership for those who could not achieve home ownership through the market. It includes shared ownership, relevant equity loans, other low cost homes for sale (at a price equivalent to at least 20% below local market value) and rent to buy (which includes a period of intermediate rent). Where public grant funding is provided, there should be provisions for the homes to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for any receipts to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision, or refunded to Government or the relevant authority specified in the funding
agreement.
Local Planning Authorities then determine a policy for their own area of how much provision is required e.g. for Bristol it is 40% of housing on developments over 15 units in one part of the city and 30% in the rest. For developments under 15 units there are lower targets for provision on the site or contributions to them being built elsewhere. The old system of putting all the affordable housing in one part of the site, generally the least desireable, is also now discouraged.
The main thing is obviously whether the definition of affordable matches what is actually affordable in a given area and I'm also not quite sure how purchased affordable housing is kept affordable and not used to generate a healthy profit for the first purchaser (as often happened with council houses that were sold off). Building more should also theoretically keep house price rises down as there is more supply.
A lot of housing associations in Wales are now developing sites themselves (I'm working on quite a few). They obviously keep the bulk for themselves but do also sell some on the open market which I assume helps fund the schemes.
0 -
Trivial pet hate: the 'affordable' housing term.
No-one is going to build un-affordable housing. It's stupid. Just call it what it is. Cheap housing or low cost. Better value, whatever.0 -
Um, isn't the fact it is unaffordable the big problem (and one of your many regular gripes)? I would have thought your objection would be that it isn't affordable for many, it certainly isn't cheap to most people. Low cost does get used but again isn't really accurate and affordable is the official terminology.rick_chasey said:Trivial pet hate: the 'affordable' housing term.
No-one is going to build un-affordable housing. It's stupid. Just call it what it is. Cheap housing or low cost. Better value, whatever.0 -
If something is bought it's, by definition, affordable. Regardless of actual cost.Pross said:
Um, isn't the fact it is unaffordable the big problem (and one of your many regular gripes)? I would have thought your objection would be that it isn't affordable for many, it certainly isn't cheap to most people. Low cost does get used but again isn't really accurate and affordable is the official terminology.rick_chasey said:Trivial pet hate: the 'affordable' housing term.
No-one is going to build un-affordable housing. It's stupid. Just call it what it is. Cheap housing or low cost. Better value, whatever.
0 -
So if 1% of the population can afford to buy a super yacht you are arguing that makes them affordable? You are regularly moaning that the younger generation can't get on the housing ladder so it plainly isn't affordable for them.rick_chasey said:
If something is bought it's, by definition, affordable. Regardless of actual cost.Pross said:
Um, isn't the fact it is unaffordable the big problem (and one of your many regular gripes)? I would have thought your objection would be that it isn't affordable for many, it certainly isn't cheap to most people. Low cost does get used but again isn't really accurate and affordable is the official terminology.rick_chasey said:Trivial pet hate: the 'affordable' housing term.
No-one is going to build un-affordable housing. It's stupid. Just call it what it is. Cheap housing or low cost. Better value, whatever.0 -
I've long thought what we need to build are larger city and town centre flats suitable for families (edge of town, less glamorous places). We seem to build a choice of posh prime location shoeboxes for professional couples, or out of town houses with gardens etc. Neither of which are suitable for lower income families. This also feeds back into everyone needing a car for everything.rick_chasey said:Trivial pet hate: the 'affordable' housing term.
No-one is going to build un-affordable housing. It's stupid. Just call it what it is. Cheap housing or low cost. Better value, whatever.
0 -
Correct. It's just a grammar annoyance.Pross said:
So if 1% of the population can afford to buy a super yacht you are arguing that makes them affordable? .rick_chasey said:
If something is bought it's, by definition, affordable. Regardless of actual cost.Pross said:
Um, isn't the fact it is unaffordable the big problem (and one of your many regular gripes)? I would have thought your objection would be that it isn't affordable for many, it certainly isn't cheap to most people. Low cost does get used but again isn't really accurate and affordable is the official terminology.rick_chasey said:Trivial pet hate: the 'affordable' housing term.
No-one is going to build un-affordable housing. It's stupid. Just call it what it is. Cheap housing or low cost. Better value, whatever.
No property is "affordable" to everyone, unless it's basically free.0 -
Think it's pretty obvious why your other suggested labels aren't used.rick_chasey said:
Correct. It's just a grammar annoyance.Pross said:
So if 1% of the population can afford to buy a super yacht you are arguing that makes them affordable? .rick_chasey said:
If something is bought it's, by definition, affordable. Regardless of actual cost.Pross said:
Um, isn't the fact it is unaffordable the big problem (and one of your many regular gripes)? I would have thought your objection would be that it isn't affordable for many, it certainly isn't cheap to most people. Low cost does get used but again isn't really accurate and affordable is the official terminology.rick_chasey said:Trivial pet hate: the 'affordable' housing term.
No-one is going to build un-affordable housing. It's stupid. Just call it what it is. Cheap housing or low cost. Better value, whatever.
No property is "affordable" to everyone, unless it's basically free.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
This is pretty much the only viable practical way out of the current situation.super_davo said:
I've long thought what we need to build are larger city and town centre flats suitable for families (edge of town, less glamorous places). We seem to build a choice of posh prime location shoeboxes for professional couples, or out of town houses with gardens etc. Neither of which are suitable for lower income families. This also feeds back into everyone needing a car for everything.rick_chasey said:Trivial pet hate: the 'affordable' housing term.
No-one is going to build un-affordable housing. It's stupid. Just call it what it is. Cheap housing or low cost. Better value, whatever.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Wrong threadsuper_davo said:
So like the typical "rightie" and their policies on immigration or the war on woke then?Stevo_666 said:
Typical leftie then - happy to push policies that don't affect him. A bit like those clamouring for higher taxes knowing they won't have to pay more.Pross said:
Camden so you’ll be hard pressed to build any more around him although he allegedly owns some property / land in the Greenbelt so maybe he’s hoping to develop that.Stevo_666 said:
That's fine, we just need to know where he lives then developers can build a tower block in his back garden. After all, he needs to lead by example.rick_chasey said:
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's a technical definition that gets misused and misunderstood outside of it's technical use.rick_chasey said:It’s just stupid “is this affordable housing? “
“No”
“so it’s unaffordable?”
“No”1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
-
You know how the same word can have slightly different meanings in different contexts? It's that.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
It's just below "luxury apartments".rick_chasey said:What is the price threshold for affordable and not?
0 -
It's a relative term, but as a starting point I would say priced at a level that someone on an average salary or slightly below can get a mortgage on.rick_chasey said:What is the price threshold for affordable and not?
Average mean salary in the UK is £31,500, so if you say £30,000, then you can borrow up to £270k as a couple (assuming both earn that much) or £135k as single applicant. Nobody would lend that without fairly hefty deposits mind. And note that's the UK average, so there would likely be regional variation with London/SE being higher and elsewhere needing to be a fair bit lower.0 -
I'm kinda with Rick, it's a unhelpful term. We didn't look at any new builds when we moved, but that's because the new build offering generally doesn't meet what we wanted, rather than them being too expensive.0
-
It's a relative term, but as a starting point I would say priced at a level that someone on an average salary or slightly below can get a mortgage on.
That would be my kind of reasoning, hence the £200k I mentioned up thread.
I would like to see more options available for £150k, as if you were a couple on or just above minimum wage on full time hours you would have no chance of buying anything above that mark (and I suspect 150k would be a big ask).
I take @rjsterry point about no margins for a developer under the £200k mark which is why I think lower cost housing is a massive issue that needs solving.0 -
I think there has to be a switch to using the term “homes” instead of “houses”. Far more encompassing.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
From the National Planning Policy Framework, which is what everyone is working from.rick_chasey said:What is the price threshold for affordable and not?
Affordable housing
Housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by the market (including housing that provides a subsidised route to home ownership and/or is for essential local workers); and which complies with one or more of the following definitions:
(a) Affordable housing for rent: meets all of the following conditions: (a) the rent is set in accordance with the Government’s rent policy for Social Rent or Affordable Rent, or is at least 20% below local market rents (including service charges where applicable); (b) the landlord is a registered provider, except where it is included as part of a Build to Rent scheme (in which case the landlord need not be a registered provider); and (c) it includes provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. For Build to Rent schemes affordable housing for rent is expected to be the normal form of affordable housing provision (and, in this context, is known as Affordable Private Rent).
(b) Starter homes: is as specified in sections 2 and 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and any secondary legislation made under these sections. The definition of a starter home should reflect the meaning set out in statute and any such secondary legislation at the time of plan-preparation or decision-making. Where secondary legislation has the effect of limiting a household’s eligibility to purchase a starter home to those with a particular maximum level of household income, those restrictions should be used.
(c) Discounted market sales housing: is that sold at a discount of at least 20% below local market value. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Provisions should be in place to ensure housing remains at a discount for future eligible households.
(d) Other affordable routes to home ownership: is housing provided for sale that provides a route to ownership for those who could not achieve home ownership through the market. It includes shared ownership, relevant equity loans, other low cost homes for sale (at a price equivalent to at least 20% below local market value) and rent to buy (which includes a period of intermediate rent). Where public grant funding is provided, there should be provisions for the homes to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for any receipts to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision, or refunded to government or the relevant authority specified in the funding agreement.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Affordable housing is not really about the open market, by definition. It's about making sure people aren't living in slums or spending an unsustainable proportion of their income on housing.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:It's a relative term, but as a starting point I would say priced at a level that someone on an average salary or slightly below can get a mortgage on.
That would be my kind of reasoning, hence the £200k I mentioned up thread.
I would like to see more options available for £150k, as if you were a couple on or just above minimum wage on full time hours you would have no chance of buying anything above that mark (and I suspect 150k would be a big ask).
I take @rjsterry point about no margins for a developer under the £200k mark which is why I think lower cost housing is a massive issue that needs solving.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No it's not. See the definition posted. It's a technical term with a technical definition. What you or I think is affordable in the general sense is neither here nor there.super_davo said:
It's a relative term, but as a starting point I would say priced at a level that someone on an average salary or slightly below can get a mortgage on.rick_chasey said:What is the price threshold for affordable and not?
Average mean salary in the UK is £31,500, so if you say £30,000, then you can borrow up to £270k as a couple (assuming both earn that much) or £135k as single applicant. Nobody would lend that without fairly hefty deposits mind. And note that's the UK average, so there would likely be regional variation with London/SE being higher and elsewhere needing to be a fair bit lower.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
What is the point in “affordable” housing if it’s not affordable?rjsterry said:
No it's not. See the definition posted. It's a technical term with a technical definition. What you or I think is affordable in the general sense is neither here nor there.super_davo said:
It's a relative term, but as a starting point I would say priced at a level that someone on an average salary or slightly below can get a mortgage on.rick_chasey said:What is the price threshold for affordable and not?
Average mean salary in the UK is £31,500, so if you say £30,000, then you can borrow up to £270k as a couple (assuming both earn that much) or £135k as single applicant. Nobody would lend that without fairly hefty deposits mind. And note that's the UK average, so there would likely be regional variation with London/SE being higher and elsewhere needing to be a fair bit lower.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It is affordable to people who can't afford to buy or rent on the open market. It is not available to those who can afford to buy or rent on the open market.pblakeney said:
What is the point in “affordable” housing if it’s not affordable?rjsterry said:
No it's not. See the definition posted. It's a technical term with a technical definition. What you or I think is affordable in the general sense is neither here nor there.super_davo said:
It's a relative term, but as a starting point I would say priced at a level that someone on an average salary or slightly below can get a mortgage on.rick_chasey said:What is the price threshold for affordable and not?
Average mean salary in the UK is £31,500, so if you say £30,000, then you can borrow up to £270k as a couple (assuming both earn that much) or £135k as single applicant. Nobody would lend that without fairly hefty deposits mind. And note that's the UK average, so there would likely be regional variation with London/SE being higher and elsewhere needing to be a fair bit lower.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Thanks. So it is properties being sold cheap to 1st time buyers who couldn’t afford it otherwise? Fine but doesn’t address the issue of property stock being overpriced. Probably makes it worse. Prices will keep rising as long as properties are selling at inflated prices even if those prices exceed wages.rjsterry said:
It is affordable to people who can't afford to buy or rent on the open market. It is not available to those who can afford to buy or rent on the open market.pblakeney said:
What is the point in “affordable” housing if it’s not affordable?rjsterry said:
No it's not. See the definition posted. It's a technical term with a technical definition. What you or I think is affordable in the general sense is neither here nor there.super_davo said:
It's a relative term, but as a starting point I would say priced at a level that someone on an average salary or slightly below can get a mortgage on.rick_chasey said:What is the price threshold for affordable and not?
Average mean salary in the UK is £31,500, so if you say £30,000, then you can borrow up to £270k as a couple (assuming both earn that much) or £135k as single applicant. Nobody would lend that without fairly hefty deposits mind. And note that's the UK average, so there would likely be regional variation with London/SE being higher and elsewhere needing to be a fair bit lower.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
