Who will buy these homes?

I had a wry smile at Toetoe’s comment comparing the quality of new builds today with those of 45 years ago. We bought a new build about 50 years ago and I remembered people saying they wouldn’t live in such a house, it would fall down in ten years time as it was cheap rubbish. Guess what, the house is still there and still lived in as are all the others in the area! People do love to decry anything new.

We now live in a very comfortable newbuild on a brownfield site on the edge of a large town. We are steps away from countryside but also close to amenities. It’s a small development but there are other massive new developments in the area. There don’t seem to be any empty houses but what does baffle me is that the population has only gone up by about 3% in 20 years. Maybe everyone is living in single-person households.

'Affordable' new homes around here are either developments of executive homes, which are priced way above what most people can afford...or tightly packed terraced and semi's with the odd huge block of flats plonked around.

No real parks or decent open spaces, narrow roads with road humps, restricted parking as land needs to make profit for the developers. No social planning here, no shops, unmade roads for years, mud, trucks etc to negotiate. Nowhere for kids to play meanwhile, no trees, hedges ripped out, no birdsong, soulless . No community hubs, no churches, poor transport links at least initially.

These cheaper homes are snapped up by investors, landlords. Go and see these estates after 2-3 years of people renting them [with no chance of owning their own place], as the number of children in families increase, people struggle with finding work and the cost of living [as they pay ridiculous rents which rise regularly] and despair. The brand new developments are sad sights to see. I've seen it happen time and time again.

There don’t seem to be any empty houses but what does baffle me is that the population has only gone up by about 3% in 20 years.

Yes, this is puzzling!

Although the projected population increase from 2022 to 2032 a supposedly 7.3 million.

The percentage of children to adults is lower so there are more adults, needing homes.

Housing that is built currently is generally in the form of family homes, not homes suitable for retired people where they could downsize, so older people are often in family homes larger than they need because there is simply nothing available to move to.

My DD and her DH bought a new home last year in an extended village an hour’s drive from Manchester. Lovely home but the area …. remember the song ‘little boxes’, there are so many. Nearby, there is a new sports centre and it’s twenty minutes walk to the shops, importantly they are very happy but schools are overflowing.

I think it's true that single person households have increased, as have split families, where each ex-partner needs a home.

I'm sure we have heard of Section 21 - I mentioned that the new government is tightening the legislation and this is one of the things that will go. The housing minister had to resign (and rightly so, IMO) for her behaviour, and she is far from alone in what has become a rental racket. The sooner the tenants' rights laws are in force the better.

Building on flood plains is a problem in my town, too. Apart from building houses where they have a risk of flooding, the sewage and water systems are being pushed to crisis point because of all the extra households, which all seem to have three or more bathrooms. I really wish there were laws to ensure that builders had to have independent impact assessments that consider all aspects of infrastructure before their plans could be considered.

mokryna

My DD and her DH bought a new home last year in an extended village an hour’s drive from Manchester. Lovely home but the area …. remember the song ‘little boxes’, there are so many. Nearby, there is a new sports centre and it’s twenty minutes walk to the shops, importantly they are very happy but schools are overflowing.

I expect there will be similar households and they will make friends. In the end, they're what make a community.

SueDonim

I had a wry smile at Toetoe’s comment comparing the quality of new builds today with those of 45 years ago. We bought a new build about 50 years ago and I remembered people saying they wouldn’t live in such a house, it would fall down in ten years time as it was cheap rubbish. Guess what, the house is still there and still lived in as are all the others in the area! People do love to decry anything new.

We now live in a very comfortable newbuild on a brownfield site on the edge of a large town. We are steps away from countryside but also close to amenities. It’s a small development but there are other massive new developments in the area. There don’t seem to be any empty houses but what does baffle me is that the population has only gone up by about 3% in 20 years. Maybe everyone is living in single-person households.

In a nostalgia trip, I recently visited the new build my family moved into in 1955 and the one they later moved to in 1961. Both houses are still there (been extended slightly), have mature gardens and look well-loved.

Housing that is built currently is generally in the form of family homes, not homes suitable for retired people where they could downsize, so older people are often in family homes larger than they need because there is simply nothing available to move to.
There is also the stamp duty deterrent. I know several people who have considered downsizing but would gain little set against the loss of one or two bedrooms, room sizes etc when solicitors' and EE's costs, removals, carpets and curtains etc are taken into account, but the ridiculous stamp duty charges put profits into losses. We aren't yet at the downsizing stage, but decided a couple of years ago to future-proof the house instead of thinking about it. Stamp duty would dwarf the costs of a stair lift, ramps or other modifications if it comes to it down the line. It's a pointless tax, IMO, and does more harm than good.

We have a situation in our city where new housing developments for students often take precedence over the building of social housing and affordable housing. It's a popular place for well-heeled university students, many of whose parents buy up properties for their offspring. I'm guessing that afterwards they hold onto them to let out.

I don't really care who buys a new home, as long as the infrastructure is there to support the new influx of people. Though I do think, as in the example above, that we may be creating a situation where the city's housing needs become unbalanced, thereby causing problems if younger first-time buyers who actually work in the city can't afford to buy.

I live in Leicestershire. Our lovely villages are slowly disappearing under a mass of new developments built around them.

It is hard to see the countryside ruined and wildlife habitat destroyed. Only last week another huge hedgerow was ripped out by a builder. The usual problems are ignored so our doctors surgery is overwhelmed and the traffic on our narrow streets is terrible.

Yes. It's a shame to see our beautiful countryside and our woodland, our wildlife habitats and our farm land being built on.
However, when I fly in from Jersey along the South Coast to Devon and look down, I'm always still surprised at the amount of green space here. I just hope it never becomes available for future development.

Doodledog

CariadAgain

I believe Black Rock (HUGE!) investment company are looking to buy a lot of homes - to rent them out for a profit for themselves.

Add in - yep...some existing houses are being taken out of the private rented sector - by virtue of tenants being thrown out, the house then turned into an HMO and in comes several illegals - ie instead of the tenants. Those chucked-out tenants still need homes - after having their existing ones grabbed off them...

Can you explain how 'illegals' get housed, please? If they are 'illegal' they will be deported if they become known to the authorities, and will be unable to accrue points in order to get to the top of the queue for housing.

Also, how can tenants have their homes 'grabbed'? There are laws to prevent this, and the new government is tightening them to prevent greedy landlords from evicting people without valid reason.

"Being taken out of the private rented sector" = what we all rent if we need rented accommodation

and changed to "Private rented accommodation used by Serco - for these illegal immigrants". Think it's GB News yesterday or today that featured one of the reporters talking to an illegal that has just been allocated a room in one of the formerly normal private rented houses - but now Serco is using it. Cue for the reporter asking him if he'd known that house was previously rented to a normal household (ie a British - presumably - woman and her two children) and she'd been kicked out so that several illegals got put in there instead. They are using these houses sometimes instead of hotels.

If only illegals did get deported.......

Doodledog

I think it's true that single person households have increased, as have split families, where each ex-partner needs a home.

I'm sure we have heard of Section 21 - I mentioned that the new government is tightening the legislation and this is one of the things that will go. The housing minister had to resign (and rightly so, IMO) for her behaviour, and she is far from alone in what has become a rental racket. The sooner the tenants' rights laws are in force the better.

Building on flood plains is a problem in my town, too. Apart from building houses where they have a risk of flooding, the sewage and water systems are being pushed to crisis point because of all the extra households, which all seem to have three or more bathrooms. I really wish there were laws to ensure that builders had to have independent impact assessments that consider all aspects of infrastructure before their plans could be considered.

Very true that single person households and split families have increased.

One quick look at Mumsnet - pretty much any day of the week - reveals there are a LOT of men out there that still haven't clicked that women are equals yet. Followed by an awful lot of women that have clicked and are coming round to the realisation that the man they got together with isn't equality-minded and therefore not a suitable partner for anyone - and they won't accept it - and that's that then = another break-up.

Admits to surprise just how many of these old-fashioned men there are still around that won't pull their weight - but yep....any day of the week and there's yet another poster up there saying she's got one of them and wondering what to do about it.

Doodledog

*Housing that is built currently is generally in the form of family homes, not homes suitable for retired people where they could downsize, so older people are often in family homes larger than they need because there is simply nothing available to move to.*
There is also the stamp duty deterrent. I know several people who have considered downsizing but would gain little set against the loss of one or two bedrooms, room sizes etc when solicitors' and EE's costs, removals, carpets and curtains etc are taken into account, but the ridiculous stamp duty charges put profits into losses. We aren't yet at the downsizing stage, but decided a couple of years ago to future-proof the house instead of thinking about it. Stamp duty would dwarf the costs of a stair lift, ramps or other modifications if it comes to it down the line. It's a pointless tax, IMO, and does more harm than good.

Yes.

We saw one chalet bungalow which might have been suitable but it was a 1960s/70s build, needed a fair bit doing to it and we've experienced those dormer roofs before in our first house. They need replacing or changing to a different style. Add in all the costs of moving we would have been out of pocket for a smaller property which we didn't like as much as our present house.

So it's stay put, pay for help and a stair lift if we need one.

Allira

No, not missing the point at all.
That is because there is another point there - that BlackRock Investments is taking over, not just here but in other countries too.

If these companies take over where Local Authorities and Governments used to be in charge, who knows where that will lead?
Is no-one worried about that?

I am.

Money talks.

Someone on this forum said even recently, what did it matter if China bought this that and the other.

It is not how much the population has grown that matters, but how many households we have. Household size has been falling steadily over the years, so household numbers have been growing.

The number of households in Britain increased by over 6% between 2013 and 2023. From 26.7 million to 28.4 million, a rise of 1.7 millionhouseholds. That is 170,000 extra households each year. They need to be housed. the majority are able to buy a house but many need subsidised homes.

Housebuilding has fallen consistently below this basic 170,000 regularly. In 2013 117,000 new houses were built, this has since risen to around 220,000, but there is a huge backlog of households in inadequate or poor quality housing needing to move to better accommodation.

All this nonsense about housing for the elderly, why should it be assumed that we all want to downsize to one or two bedroom flats/bungalows in our old age. many of us are relieved to have lots of extra space in our houses when our children move out. Space for hobby and craft rooms, studies, space to house gym equipment, the ability to have seperate bedrooms.

Why is it always elderly small households that must downsize what about the several million households of people under retirement ages who live in three, four or more bedroomed homes? Why aren't they expected to downsize?

I have yet to meet a younger couple or singleton who did not aspire to owning a three bedroomed house. I am not talking of couples of family formation age.

We are staying with our DD at the moment, a lifelong singleton. She has just bought a five bedroomed house, Two of those bedrooms, on the same floor as her living room have been turned, one into an office for WFH and the other into a craft room. As far as she is concerned it is a three bedroomed house.

I quite agree that for many people downsizing to a flat or bungalow may be the ideal life style, and I am certainly not criticising it. Flats for the elderly seem to be going up everywhere. One area of the town I live in has almost become Twilight Quarter. There must be four or five developments for older people cheek by jowl, with another 100 just been given planning consent.

But for many older people, this is not what they want. We are both on the cusp of 82. We have just downsized to a 3-400 year old listed building needing renovation. It is ideally situated close to the town centre where all services are town service based and everything is within walking distance. We enjoy house renovation. Not everybody wants to do what we are doing, but neither does everyone want a nice flat in a retirement development.

bluebird243

'Affordable' new homes around here are either developments of executive homes, which are priced way above what most people can afford...or tightly packed terraced and semi's with the odd huge block of flats plonked around.

No real parks or decent open spaces, narrow roads with road humps, restricted parking as land needs to make profit for the developers. No social planning here, no shops, unmade roads for years, mud, trucks etc to negotiate. Nowhere for kids to play meanwhile, no trees, hedges ripped out, no birdsong, soulless . No community hubs, no churches, poor transport links at least initially.

These cheaper homes are snapped up by investors, landlords. Go and see these estates after 2-3 years of people renting them [with no chance of owning their own place], as the number of children in families increase, people struggle with finding work and the cost of living [as they pay ridiculous rents which rise regularly] and despair. The brand new developments are sad sights to see. I've seen it happen time and time again.

My son in law has a house on a new estate it’s built to a price he can afford but is comfortable, 2 bed semi, parking for 2 cars rear garden, everything he needs.
The estate is mixed 1 bed apartment, up to 4 bed detached the layout is excellent a large recreation area in the centre a large wildlife area to one side, ideal for walking dogs.
During construction it was clean and tidy each section
completed before they moved on to the next, I’m not easily impressed but I would live there.

Allira

Sarnia

Calendargirl

I live in a small market town.

Many of the shops down the main street have flats above them, a large proportion of them look fairly derelict.

If ‘someone’ did them up and rented them out to singles, professional couples, even families with children ( they have big rooms), it would free up some homes and make the town centre look so much better.

Too expensive, I assume.

Liverpool City Council had rows of back to back. two-up, two-down terraced houses, all derelict. They sold them for £1 each to people (not developers etc) who needed a home. They were able to get a loan from the council to improve the houses and the difference in them was remarkable.
The Council shifted these houses, people had somewhere to live and as they had worked hard to do them up they looked after them and crime dropped.

They did that in Stoke-on-Trent too, years ago. An excellent idea.

Every new estate has to include some social and affordable housing, I think.

The Council wants to build on flood plains near here 🤨

The problem with new developments is that they tend to be on the edges of small towns or villages but separate from them and there seems to be little integration.

Infill and brownfield sites within the parameters of existing towns would seem to be better then using greenfield or farm land.

My local council has built a huge development on flood plains with an unmanned sewage station nearby. During heavy rain the sewage plant overflows polluting the local river and also the flood plains. People and pets tread sewage into homes resulting in the local GP's and vets overwhelmed with E.coli cases.

CariadAgain

Doodledog

CariadAgain

I believe Black Rock (HUGE!) investment company are looking to buy a lot of homes - to rent them out for a profit for themselves.

Add in - yep...some existing houses are being taken out of the private rented sector - by virtue of tenants being thrown out, the house then turned into an HMO and in comes several illegals - ie instead of the tenants. Those chucked-out tenants still need homes - after having their existing ones grabbed off them...

Can you explain how 'illegals' get housed, please? If they are 'illegal' they will be deported if they become known to the authorities, and will be unable to accrue points in order to get to the top of the queue for housing.

Also, how can tenants have their homes 'grabbed'? There are laws to prevent this, and the new government is tightening them to prevent greedy landlords from evicting people without valid reason.

"Being taken out of the private rented sector" = what we all rent if we need rented accommodation

and changed to "Private rented accommodation used by Serco - for these illegal immigrants". Think it's GB News yesterday or today that featured one of the reporters talking to an illegal that has just been allocated a room in one of the formerly normal private rented houses - but now Serco is using it. Cue for the reporter asking him if he'd known that house was previously rented to a normal household (ie a British - presumably - woman and her two children) and she'd been kicked out so that several illegals got put in there instead. They are using these houses sometimes instead of hotels.

If only illegals did get deported.......

I don't understand what you mean by 'Cue for the reporter asking him'. Did a reporter question someone, and if so, who was asked what, and what was the reply?

Are you talking about the Lee Anderson allegations? If so, there is no evidence to show that they have any basis in fact. As I understand it, he (LA) claimed that landlords had been approached (not sure by whom) with offers of incentives to evict sitting tenants and replace them with immigrants. He was unable to verify this, and no evidence has been found to suggest that it has any basis in truth.

Or are you talking about Glasgow, where some asylum seekers were evicted by Serco because their asylum was refused, and new applicants were given their accommodation. I would have thought you'd be in favour of that, as after their applications were refused they became 'illegal immigrants', and the accommodation went to those legally claiming asylum. Would you have preferred to see the people whose claims were rejected allowed to stay?

Or are you talking about something else altogether, in which case, what?

This is the sort of muddled thinking/twisting of the truth that underpins so much of the propaganda of the past few years. The term 'Illegal' when talking about human beings, applies to those who have been refused the right to stay. They are deported, so have no need of accommodation, whoever is the landlord. Asylum seekers are here legally, and it is not their fault if the process by which their claims are accepted or rejected is painfully slow. Anyone who has arrived 'under the radar' is also here illegally, but will never be offered housing or benefits of any kind, as they will have to declare their illegal status in order to make any sort of claim.

There are 3 new developments with 5 miles of where I live. a number of them are quite large houses costing around £800,000. However, on each development there are a number of affordable homes costing far less and smaller. The large ones are not selling due to the fact the smaller ones have been rented out to large families.

Doodledog - Though we're both speaking English....I'm blowed if I can understand what you're saying basically. Even though my family is "many generations English" on both sides and so I obviously speak perfect English.

You seem to be going off at a tangent and confusing the whole issue.....and I don't wish to go off at all sorts of tangents in a bid to try and understand what you're saying.

I'll summarise, but feel free to get back to me on anything you don't understand.

There are two incidences of which I am aware that may have fed into what your post was (or appeared to be) saying.

One is the LA nonsense about someone being offered money to evict tenants in order to house immigrants. That has never been evidenced.

The other is the fact that in Glasgow some people were evicted by Serco because their applications for asylum were rejected and replaced with people awaiting adjudication on their own applications. So 'illegal immigrants' were asked to leave both their homes and the country.

In neither case were innocent 'Brits' evicted in order to make way for so-called 'illegals', as your earlier post suggested.

What is unclear about that?

inflammatory suggestion I would expect from GB news

Much adored by many.