snap general election?

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

For those claiming that there's no more room, have a look at this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Britain is not by any stretch disappearing under tarmac and concrete. Even London is one of the least dense major cities in the world.

That's not to say that development is always well thought through and infrastructure keeps up, but we are not running out of space.

Of course we are not running out of room, thats a ridiculous idea but without infrastructure ie roads, schools hospitals leisure facilities etc etc then we are indeed running out of space and most importantly, quality of life.

It's no more difficult to build the infrastructure than the houses themselves. Sadly neither is happening, in part because most acknowledge the need for more housing, just not anywhere near them.

immigration is still close to 300k per year, say only 1/3rd have a car, an extra 100k cars on the roads every year min!! on a road netword that hasnt been added to in the last 40 years or so.
many will settle, have kids or bring children in... skilled med staff and teachers take 5 years or more to train up inc uni, GP's and Doctors maybe 10 to 15 years, yet the numbers going into these professions is falling!!!!

personally, yeah i dont want housing near me, there are no jobs so people commute to large towns/cities...in cars.... there are few rail ways and bus services, so more congestion and cycling becomes even more dangerous...
down here, building the occasional new (but small) out of town shopping centre seems to be the councils idea of increasing local employment! like the 24yo serving you at ScrewFix can afford the £210k "affordable house" being built down the road??

why not build extra housing in and around existing conurbations? and more flats too, the green belt rules are out of date and need to be revised.

No party in this election is saying anything about infrastructure though, so look forward to the day when RR will be a distant memory on uk roads and cycling will be restricted to canal paths and mtb trail centres.

I read somewhere that if you let people build on green belt land within walking distance of station there is room for 1 million houses. Then make it easier to convert shops/offices (back) into residential and most of the problem will be solved.

FocusZing

Green Belts are part of what makes life worth living and provides areas for our fellow inhabitants. As opposed to a sprawling housing development.

FocusZing

...

mamba80

FocusZing wrote:

Green Belts are part of what makes life worth living and provides areas for our fellow inhabitants. As opposed to a sprawling housing development.

Nonsense, the green belt is almost total private land, that you can only look at! whilst you drive through on your commute!
modern farming practice makes sure our fellow inhabitants are exterminated.

i would nt want to see uncontrolled dev BUT by putting new housing around every little town and village you increase commuting, congest and degrade roads and put intolerable strain on these places where there isnt the capacity to have extra housing.

surrey_commuter

FocusZing wrote:

Green Belts are part of what makes life worth living and provides areas for our fellow inhabitants. As opposed to a sprawling housing development.

But I specifically said within walking distance of a station so making the point that it would not be a "sprawling housing development"

FocusZing

Fair point I missed that trying to protect my view:)

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Green Belts are part of what makes life worth living and provides areas for our fellow inhabitants. As opposed to a sprawling housing development.

Nonsense, the green belt is almost total private land, that you can only look at! whilst you drive through on your commute!
modern farming practice makes sure our fellow inhabitants are exterminated.

i would nt want to see uncontrolled dev BUT by putting new housing around every little town and village you increase commuting, congest and degrade roads and put intolerable strain on these places where there isnt the capacity to have extra housing.

Of course it's mostly privately owned. It's not as though local authorities are going to buy up large tracts of farmland. That doesn't mean it's all closed to the public There are thousands of miles of public rights of way for a start. Add to that the hundreds of areas of woodland, heath and so on, owned by the National Trust and the like and there's actually a hell of a lot that is accessible.

You're rather proving my point that everyone thinks the extra housing should be built elsewhere, but we are so far behind where we need to be that unless lots of housing is built in lots of places, the restriction of supply will ensure that property prices remain high and out of reach.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Green Belts are part of what makes life worth living and provides areas for our fellow inhabitants. As opposed to a sprawling housing development.

Nonsense, the green belt is almost total private land, that you can only look at! whilst you drive through on your commute!
modern farming practice makes sure our fellow inhabitants are exterminated.

i would nt want to see uncontrolled dev BUT by putting new housing around every little town and village you increase commuting, congest and degrade roads and put intolerable strain on these places where there isnt the capacity to have extra housing.

Of course it's mostly privately owned. It's not as though local authorities are going to buy up large tracts of farmland. That doesn't mean it's all closed to the public There are thousands of miles of public rights of way for a start. Add to that the hundreds of areas of woodland, heath and so on, owned by the National Trust and the like and there's actually a hell of a lot that is accessible.

You're rather proving my point that everyone thinks the extra housing should be built elsewhere, but we are so far behind where we need to be that unless lots of housing is built in lots of places, the restriction of supply will ensure that property prices remain high and out of reach.

Do you know what the green belt is? and where it is?
http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/housi ... reen-belts

as for my so called nimbyism, the nearest town to me, Launceston (and Tavistock in Devon) has seen an exponential growth in house building (as have most towns in Devon & Cornwall) it has made zero difference to pricing, has made no difference for those waiting on housing lists (as none of it is truly affordable, let alone council housing) and i dont care how many more houses they build near launceston/tavistock SO LONG AS they also build roads, a new School, a new hospital and the A388 which is now one of the most dangerous roads in the UK, multiple deaths each year - is modernised, launceston hasnt even got an affordable leisure centre, Cornwall is in the process of selling them all off.
there are few jobs in launceston, and even fewer well paid ones, so people commute on the A30 to Exeter/Truro or the A388 to Plymouth, all 30 to 50 miles away, again causing more congestion and more road accidents... so less cycling, there is no rail and a slow unreliable bus service.

Building in these towns and villages is a huge mistake and one that will see the end of cycling on the road, as a cyclist, not something i want,
the need for housing is where there are jobs OR you create new towns (5k plus of new build) with new DC links into nearby cities and new A roads into larger towns, what happens in reality is a new roundabout gets built to "ease congestion" as a 1000 new families move into an already over populated area, the locals are still stuck on mum an dads sofa as they cant afford any of these properties and unless they were being sold for 80k never will either.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Green Belts are part of what makes life worth living and provides areas for our fellow inhabitants. As opposed to a sprawling housing development.

Nonsense, the green belt is almost total private land, that you can only look at! whilst you drive through on your commute!
modern farming practice makes sure our fellow inhabitants are exterminated.

i would nt want to see uncontrolled dev BUT by putting new housing around every little town and village you increase commuting, congest and degrade roads and put intolerable strain on these places where there isnt the capacity to have extra housing.

Of course it's mostly privately owned. It's not as though local authorities are going to buy up large tracts of farmland. That doesn't mean it's all closed to the public There are thousands of miles of public rights of way for a start. Add to that the hundreds of areas of woodland, heath and so on, owned by the National Trust and the like and there's actually a hell of a lot that is accessible.

You're rather proving my point that everyone thinks the extra housing should be built elsewhere, but we are so far behind where we need to be that unless lots of housing is built in lots of places, the restriction of supply will ensure that property prices remain high and out of reach.

Do you know what the green belt is? and where it is?
http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/housi ... reen-belts

as for my so called nimbyism, the nearest town to me, Launceston (and Tavistock in Devon) has seen an exponential growth in house building (as have most towns in Devon & Cornwall) it has made zero difference to pricing, has made no difference for those waiting on housing lists (as none of it is truly affordable, let alone council housing) and i dont care how many more houses they build near launceston/tavistock SO LONG AS they also build roads, a new School, a new hospital and the A388 which is now one of the most dangerous roads in the UK, multiple deaths each year - is modernised, launceston hasnt even got an affordable leisure centre, Cornwall is in the process of selling them all off.
there are few jobs in launceston, and even fewer well paid ones, so people commute on the A30 to Exeter/Truro or the A388 to Plymouth, all 30 to 50 miles away, again causing more congestion and more road accidents... so less cycling, there is no rail and a slow unreliable bus service.

Building in these towns and villages is a huge mistake and one that will see the end of cycling on the road, as a cyclist, not something i want,
the need for housing is where there are jobs OR you create new towns (5k plus of new build) with new DC links into nearby cities and new A roads into larger towns, what happens in reality is a new roundabout gets built to "ease congestion" as a 1000 new families move into an already over populated area, the locals are still stuck on mum an dads sofa as they cant afford any of these properties and unless they were being sold for 80k never will either.

Fairly familiar, yes, as I've worked on small scale housing projects in green belt and AONB land.

I'm also very familiar with the problems of building housing without the infrastructure. That doesn't mean we don't need the housing - it would lie empty if that was the case.

You're quite right that a few hundred extra homes in Launceston won't bring prices down. This is something that needs addressing nationally.

Pross

The way people talk it's as though they all read the Mail and don't realise that new developments are subject to S106 contributions to cover infrastructure improvements. The local council will set priorities on where this is spent based on need but it can cover a contribution to additional school places, highway upgrades or public transport. On larger developments there will often be entire new schools and doctor's surgeries. The problem then though is finding the people needed to staff them. Personally I think more should get spent on high speed internet as the way to reduce traffic congestion and pollution is to enable as many people as possible to work effectively from home or satellite offices which would also help overcome localised property hotspots.

Spending on improved rail links would also be good, the HS2 money being spent on making travel a few minutes quicker on one line could do so much in upgrading and extending the network but trying to carry out major work on an over-stretched Victorian network will be hugely problematic.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Green Belts are part of what makes life worth living and provides areas for our fellow inhabitants. As opposed to a sprawling housing development.

Nonsense, the green belt is almost total private land, that you can only look at! whilst you drive through on your commute!
modern farming practice makes sure our fellow inhabitants are exterminated.

i would nt want to see uncontrolled dev BUT by putting new housing around every little town and village you increase commuting, congest and degrade roads and put intolerable strain on these places where there isnt the capacity to have extra housing.

Of course it's mostly privately owned. It's not as though local authorities are going to buy up large tracts of farmland. That doesn't mean it's all closed to the public There are thousands of miles of public rights of way for a start. Add to that the hundreds of areas of woodland, heath and so on, owned by the National Trust and the like and there's actually a hell of a lot that is accessible.

You're rather proving my point that everyone thinks the extra housing should be built elsewhere, but we are so far behind where we need to be that unless lots of housing is built in lots of places, the restriction of supply will ensure that property prices remain high and out of reach.

Do you know what the green belt is? and where it is?
http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/housi ... reen-belts

as for my so called nimbyism, the nearest town to me, Launceston (and Tavistock in Devon) has seen an exponential growth in house building (as have most towns in Devon & Cornwall) it has made zero difference to pricing, has made no difference for those waiting on housing lists (as none of it is truly affordable, let alone council housing) and i dont care how many more houses they build near launceston/tavistock SO LONG AS they also build roads, a new School, a new hospital and the A388 which is now one of the most dangerous roads in the UK, multiple deaths each year - is modernised, launceston hasnt even got an affordable leisure centre, Cornwall is in the process of selling them all off.
there are few jobs in launceston, and even fewer well paid ones, so people commute on the A30 to Exeter/Truro or the A388 to Plymouth, all 30 to 50 miles away, again causing more congestion and more road accidents... so less cycling, there is no rail and a slow unreliable bus service.

Building in these towns and villages is a huge mistake and one that will see the end of cycling on the road, as a cyclist, not something i want,
the need for housing is where there are jobs OR you create new towns (5k plus of new build) with new DC links into nearby cities and new A roads into larger towns, what happens in reality is a new roundabout gets built to "ease congestion" as a 1000 new families move into an already over populated area, the locals are still stuck on mum an dads sofa as they cant afford any of these properties and unless they were being sold for 80k never will either.

Fairly familiar, yes, as I've worked on small scale housing projects in green belt and AONB land.

I'm also very familiar with the problems of building housing without the infrastructure. That doesn't mean we don't need the housing - it would lie empty if that was the case.

You're quite right that a few hundred extra homes in Launceston won't bring prices down. This is something that needs addressing nationally.

how many houses need to built "nationally" so locals in Cornwall on the avg local wage of approx 18 to 20k can afford them? lets say 100k per 2 bed house (currently 247k) - a 20% reduction is meaningless to anyone on our avg wages

Cornwall isnt a special case, any region outside of the home counties is in the same boat.

what is needed is social (council) housing, the reasons it was began havent gone away.

Pross

Developers already have to provide a certain percentage of the development as affordable housing for any development over, I think, 10 houses. They will then either build the houses themselves for a housing association who then rent them out or sell the land to the housing association to build themselves. The houses are often a higher spec than those for sale on the open market. In addition the HCA are now doing a massive new build project and there's even talk of them actually doin the building themselves to try to speed things up. Modular housing is starting to develop as well which will really help speed up the process and will allow high quality and fairly environmentally friendly construction. The big problem though is always land supply and the planning process, I'm pretty sure the green belt rules have been relaxed though.

type:epyt

We need another property crisis to bring things back to reality ... Yes, some (maybe most) folks would suffer but it's their own fault for overpaying/overspending and creating this false 'growth' ... If people didn't buy/sell at these prices the market wouldn't be where it is ...

Same with rents ... demand only occurs when people want to move (renting or buying)!... Stay put, accept your lot, and in the main not much will change ...

Increased population? A 2/3 bed house is just that so there is a limit to how many folks can stay there ... Have/want more (or any) kids? Then stop moaning and pay up or have less sex ...

crumbschief

We need En Sabah Nur,he'd sort it out

rjsterry

We should be building 300,000 homes a year according to the House of Lords Select Committee report.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... m5P4ktI0ng

We're actually managing less than half that.That 300,000 would include local authority and housing association building; it doesn't all need to be for sale. As Pross pointed out, S.106 agreements can be used to fund new infrastructure alongside the housing. That amount of construction would also generate significant employment.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

We should be building 300,000 homes a year according to the House of Lords Select Committee report.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... m5P4ktI0ng

We're actually managing less than half that.That 300,000 would include local authority and housing association building; it doesn't all need to be for sale. As Pross pointed out, S.106 agreements can be used to fund new infrastructure alongside the housing. That amount of construction would also generate significant employment.

what infrastructure?
a roundabout and a new set of traffic lights is nt a new A road linking Sherford (new town outside of Plymouth) which it isnt getting, so existing congested roads into Plymouth and onto the A38 will be even more clogged up, more lanes to become rat runs.
http://www.lindenhomes.co.uk/developmen ... d-plymouth

i m sure those living in shitte rented accommodation in plymouth (or with mum an dad) will jump at the chance to spend their 18k per wages on a new 219k affordable home in sherford!

its a fccking joke! we dont need 300k new homes, we need 300k of council housing, run by councils, not for profit.

we also need investment in new roads and transport systems, not too mention healthcare and schooling.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ec ... ial-system

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

We should be building 300,000 homes a year according to the House of Lords Select Committee report.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... m5P4ktI0ng

We're actually managing less than half that.That 300,000 would include local authority and housing association building; it doesn't all need to be for sale. As Pross pointed out, S.106 agreements can be used to fund new infrastructure alongside the housing. That amount of construction would also generate significant employment.

what infrastructure?
a roundabout and a new set of traffic lights is nt a new A road linking Sherford (new town outside of Plymouth) which it isnt getting, so existing congested roads into Plymouth and onto the A38 will be even more clogged up, more lanes to become rat runs.
http://www.lindenhomes.co.uk/developmen ... d-plymouth

i m sure those living in shitte rented accommodation in plymouth (or with mum an dad) will jump at the chance to spend their 18k per wages on a new 219k affordable home in sherford!

its a ******* joke! we dont need 300k new homes, we need 300k of council housing, run by councils, not for profit.

we also need investment in new roads and transport systems, not too mention healthcare and schooling.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ec ... ial-system

The bold bit, as you seem to have missed it.

ugo.santalucia

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

We should be building 300,000 homes a year according to the House of Lords Select Committee report.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... m5P4ktI0ng

We're actually managing less than half that.That 300,000 would include local authority and housing association building; it doesn't all need to be for sale. As Pross pointed out, S.106 agreements can be used to fund new infrastructure alongside the housing. That amount of construction would also generate significant employment.

what infrastructure?
a roundabout and a new set of traffic lights is nt a new A road linking Sherford (new town outside of Plymouth) which it isnt getting, so existing congested roads into Plymouth and onto the A38 will be even more clogged up, more lanes to become rat runs.
http://www.lindenhomes.co.uk/developmen ... d-plymouth

i m sure those living in shitte rented accommodation in plymouth (or with mum an dad) will jump at the chance to spend their 18k per wages on a new 219k affordable home in sherford!

its a ******* joke! we dont need 300k new homes, we need 300k of council housing, run by councils, not for profit.

we also need investment in new roads and transport systems, not too mention healthcare and schooling.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ec ... ial-system

Basicaly yes... not sure how we came to the perception that 200 K is an affordable home... in rural France (which is not rural Rwanda) you buy a 6 bedroom detached house with 3 acre of land for that money

Pross

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

We should be building 300,000 homes a year according to the House of Lords Select Committee report.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... m5P4ktI0ng

We're actually managing less than half that.That 300,000 would include local authority and housing association building; it doesn't all need to be for sale. As Pross pointed out, S.106 agreements can be used to fund new infrastructure alongside the housing. That amount of construction would also generate significant employment.

what infrastructure?
a roundabout and a new set of traffic lights is nt a new A road linking Sherford (new town outside of Plymouth) which it isnt getting, so existing congested roads into Plymouth and onto the A38 will be even more clogged up, more lanes to become rat runs.
http://www.lindenhomes.co.uk/developmen ... d-plymouth

i m sure those living in shitte rented accommodation in plymouth (or with mum an dad) will jump at the chance to spend their 18k per wages on a new 219k affordable home in sherford!

its a ******* joke! we dont need 300k new homes, we need 300k of council housing, run by councils, not for profit.

we also need investment in new roads and transport systems, not too mention healthcare and schooling.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/ec ... ial-system

So are you saying council housing isn't homes? As rjs said, it doesn't have to be all for private purchase and as I pointed out above a percentage of all new build is set aside as social housing. I'm also not understanding how building 300k council houses rather than open market would reduce the strain on infrastructure.

It's almost as though you haven't read anything written by those of us who are involved in this sort of thing on a daily basis and chosen to rely on the words of the local rag.

There are two types of highway improvement, a relatively small development like those that Linden build will carry out local capacity improvements identified by a Transport Assessment but they'll also contribute a percentage share to strategic improvements that an individual development can't fund but which the overall local plan will require. Things are more joined up and long term than people realise as you don't see the works happen immediately. For example, in Bristol the Council took money of all developers for about 20 years to fund a tram system which they are now spending (albeit on a bus system!). On the other hand, I'm working on a 1200 home development in Sussex that is directly funding a section of bypass that includes a bridge over a railway line to remove a level crossing, a new primary school and several million pounds of sewer upgrades. I don't particularly like working for major house builders and they avoid any cost they can but to suggest they can just throw up houses without any wider consideration is just wrong.

mamba80

i dont read the local rag, i live here and have seen the so called infrastructure improvements, i dont need a condescending lecture from you thank
sherford is 5500 new fcuking homes 3 separate house builders, linden plus bovis and whimpey.

sure they are building new infrastructure within the new town and obv roads to connect, one of the new link roads into plymton, goes straight into 2 mini roundabouts, a well know bottleneck..... but the wider infrastructure? NO.

upgrades to A38, new rail line past dawlish? no, new duelling of A38 into cornwall no, new crossing into plymouth over Laira, a huge bottle neck for years..no!!! new rail link into Plymouth... no! maybe a tram line then ..ah NO! what about a patchy bus service that few will use? oh alright then!!!! lol!

so 12000 new residents or there abouts with the emphasis on getting the houses built and little serious regard everything else.

Of those 5500 new houses, none are council housing, this and next gov have no plans to build new council social housing.... and Labour wont get in, so your reference to council housing is pointless.. and no limits on buy to let either.

You cannot just dump 5k of housing without considering and acting on an area far bigger than the immediate surround, it is this that is destroying the UK and making it seem like its full up, when it clearly is not, as you ve both said.

Maybe you both need to step outside your glass bubbles and actually look at the wider UK ?

Pross

mamba80 wrote:

Maybe you both need to step outside your glass bubbles and actually look at the wider UK ?

I don't know where you think my glass bubble is but my main area of work is Wales and the South West. Do you really think a housing development, even one with 5000 homes, can pay for upgrading a rail network? I can guarantee you that the developers will have put millions into a Council pot towards wider infrastructure upgrades. The Council set the priorities for how that is spent though and it may be a decade or more before there is enough development to fill the pot to the level that it can pay for those big items.

Pross

Mamba, I think you need to read this as it sets out all the financial contributions and trigger points for Sherford and they appear to differ hugely from the picture you are painting. Over £11m of contributions to off-site highway improvements, a 1,000 space park & ride, 3 new schools and 20% of the development to be social housing. I don't know if it's the final version but it won't be a million miles out. If you are suggesting none of this is being done you ought to mount a legal challenge.

http://democracy.plymouth.gov.uk/documents/s36555/ITEM%2004Final%20report%20sherford.pdf

mamba80

Pross wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Maybe you both need to step outside your glass bubbles and actually look at the wider UK ?

I don't know where you think my glass bubble is but my main area of work is Wales and the South West. Do you really think a housing development, even one with 5000 homes, can pay for upgrading a rail network? I can guarantee you that the developers will have put millions into a Council pot towards wider infrastructure upgrades. The Council set the priorities for how that is spent though and it may be a decade or more before there is enough development to fill the pot to the level that it can pay for those big items.

I am not making myself clear!

i dont expect Bovis etc to build a new railway BUT as rst said, this is a national problem and therefore imho infrastructure, outside of the narrow confines of the development, needs to be catered for (and paid for at nat level) i dont doubt that small upgrades locally will happen but as i ve just said this should be set in-conjunction with central government, so a wider approach is taken.

anyhow, shall we move on?

Pross

Agreed on that then. Someone up thread was saying that we shouldn't be building more housing as we don't have the infrastructure so they got intertwined somewhere along the way. Infrastructure is one thing I do feel the Government should push forward even if it means borrowing and to be there they are trying to do something. The question is whether they are spending it in the best way but there'll always be arguments about that.

mamba80

Tuition fees..... Labour are promising to scrap these from 2017! and limit interest rate rises.

Figures look like the fees, currently 9250 per year and over 6% interest rate (that should be on Rip off Britain!) appear to be putting off poorer families, so a good use of public money, though personally, i d like to see them return to a far lower figure, say 3k and an extension of courses that are completely free... nursing/science/engineering for example.

Add in the maintenance loans and leaving a 3 yr course with 50k of debt is ridiculous, the loan might not count against you but the repayments will and of course, should you get that high paid job, you will also be paying hi tax too, so end up paying for your course twice over.

get those lazy u25 registered to vote and the poll gap will close even further.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Tuition fees..... Labour are promising to scrap these from 2017! and limit interest rate rises.

Figures look like the fees, currently 9250 per year and over 6% interest rate (that should be on Rip off Britain!) appear to be putting off poorer families, so a good use of public money, though personally, i d like to see them return to a far lower figure, say 3k and an extension of courses that are completely free... nursing/science/engineering for example.

Add in the maintenance loans and leaving a 3 yr course with 50k of debt is ridiculous, the loan might not count against you but the repayments will and of course, should you get that high paid job, you will also be paying hi tax too, so end up paying for your course twice over.

get those lazy u25 registered to vote and the poll gap will close even further.

History suggests that it is impossible to push up tax receipts much above current levels. In which case what are you going to cut to pay for this and improvements in infrastructure.

As for maintenance loans and £20k of additional debt can somebody explain why students no longer work evenings/weekends and holidays? is this a mental thing that once you owe £30k you may as well keep going?

rjsterry

One might suggest student numbers perhaps -quality rather than quantity.
I'd imagine a part time job on min wage would make a fairly small dent in fees, as most would be used for subsistence.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

One might suggest student numbers perhaps -quality rather than quantity.
I'd imagine a part time job on min wage would make a fairly small dent in fees, as most would be used for subsistence.

I meant the additional £20k debt in living costs - this suggests there is not a lot of earning going on. Or are we lumping in the costs of going on a year's holiday?

graeme_s-2

Surrey Commuter wrote:

As for maintenance loans and £20k of additional debt can somebody explain why students no longer work evenings/weekends and holidays? is this a mental thing that once you owe £30k you may as well keep going?

I used to work part time when I was a student (early 00's), and I know plenty of students still work part time (I work in a University). But basically yes, even when I was a student there was already an attitude of being indebted so what harm was a bit extra going to do? I appreciate it's illogical, but teenagers aren't exactly the best decision makers.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

One might suggest student numbers perhaps -quality rather than quantity.
I'd imagine a part time job on min wage would make a fairly small dent in fees, as most would be used for subsistence.

I meant the additional £20k debt in living costs - this suggests there is not a lot of earning going on. Or are we lumping in the costs of going on a year's holiday?

I've read that it is harder for students to get part-time work now as there is another source for unskilled labour.