Who will buy these homes?

^It's not nonsense as you call it. Perhaps you can afford to heat and maintain, pay the Council tax etc for your large house with craft, hobby, gym rooms. Then to pay for cleaners, gardeners when you are unable to do all that for yourselves.
Many cannot.^

And downsizing does not necessarily mean downsizing to a one-bedroom flat or bungalow with four rooms. Not everyone wants to buy a large, old property needing extensive renovation in their 70s or 80s either. We don't want a nice flat in a retirement development either. Why assume that?

There is a dearth of single storey, reasonably sized homes as few have been built for many years.

Allira Please read what I actually said. What you say is exactly what I am saying.

There are 11 million people over 65 in the UK and we are as diverse as the rest of the population. Quite a number are on low incomes and pension credit, but many also have comfortable retirement incomes and there are of course plenty of millionaaires over 65.

And if many cannot afford to maintain houses with three bedrooms and 2 or more living rooms, many can also not afford the managemnt charges associated with living in retirement complexes.

The problem is that there seems to be a belief - even among some older people that there is a one size fits all solution to housing elderly people - pack them all into small flats and bungalows, forget their diversity, individuality, varying lifestyles and preferences.

I am shouting out for saying older people are not all clones, Stepford retirees, carefully programmed to fit the holes governments and younger people think we ought to fill.

We are all different, our incomes vary from poverty to immense wealth, our housing needs and wants are various, our health can be excellent to terminally ill or seriously disabled. So trying to suggest, as so many do, that we all find ourselves a nice little flat is fatuous. For some people, incuding very good friends these retirement flats are ideal, but equally few people would want to do what we are doing at our age, but it suits us, we would never suggest this is what everyone should do, neither would we suggest anyone doing what we are doing should be stopped.

Our home built in the 1800s is still standing. I think all decades have good and bad. It's down to what people desire and want to afford.

We want to de-clutter, not to downsize, rather so our children have less trips to a tip. Our home has no value, the land is the bit anyone would purchase. Many old homes will be torn down soon, imo, for new builds.

Iam64

1930’s houses are well built. One of our family just bought their first house, a 1940s former council house. Well built, three bedrooms, good size garden. We need to build good quality social housing, with good social landlords as happened after ww2

But not prefabs, although I have visited family who lived in prefabs and they were quite large, warm and comfortable with good-sized gardens!

1930’s houses are well built. One of our family just bought their first house, a 1940s former council house. Well built, three bedrooms, good size garden. We need to build good quality social housing, with good social landlords as happened after ww2

growstuff

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.

My parents bought their first house in the late 1930s after moving around, living in married quarters and rented accommodation.

They were told the houses were 'Jerry-built' ie shoddy. Those sturdy little semi-detached houses are still going strong, unlike many of our public buildings such as schools built in more recent times.

M0nica

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.

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

It's not nonsense as you call it. Perhaps you can afford to heat and maintain, pay the Council tax etc for your large house with craft, hobby, gym rooms. Then to pay for cleaners, gardeners when you are unable to do all that for yourselves.
Many cannot.

And downsizing does not necessarily mean downsizing to a one-bedroom flat or bungalow with four rooms. Not everyone wants to buy a large, old property needing extensive renovation in their 70s or 80s either.

We don't want a nice flat in a retirement development either. Why assume that?

There is a dearth of single storey, reasonably sized homes as few have been built for many years.

“They come and take our jobs”

Yes, look at the health and cares service it couldn’t run without migrants at every level from consultants right down to care workers and cleaners.
Delivery drivers also a very high proportion of migrant workers, vegetable pickers, many other jobs that we don’t want to do.
I don’t support uncontrolled migration but we do need migrants.

Norah

Who will buy? Those who want them and can afford.

Norah You should know that a straight answer isn't the one required.

CariadAgain

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 understood Doodledog's post too. At least she manages to stick to the topic without going off on a tangent to bring up a favourite agenda item.

fancythat

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

It was probably me. Well, why does it matter? What it actually means is that China is investing in the UK ie pumping money into the UK economy.

* on and on it goes, like a ghastly machine pumping out half truth and fear *

It is dangerous and stokes hatred and fear. It is so important not to distort or misrepresent the facts about refugees, asylum seekers, their impact on the European countries where they seek help, asylum or even (how very dare they) the possibility to build a better life for their families

I come from a largely white British background. We now include the sons and grandchildren of a polish man who escaped a concentration camp and fought with the free polish army. My soon to be grand daughter in law has a white British father, Burmese/ Myanmar mother. My DNA is a mix of northern English, French, Danish , Irish and Scottish. Let’s not lose humanity when considering our Housing and other needs

Who will buy? Those who want them and can afford.

CariadAgain

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.

No.

*Doodledog was and always is clear, but you may be confused.

Thank you, Iam.

Just a variation on the old chestnut " They come here and take our jobs"

Only they don't.

On and on it goes, like a ghastly machine pumping out half truth and fear.

CariadAgain

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 understand what Doodledog is saying. It’s written in clear English. I see no tangents or confusion.
I’m afraid I find your comments incomprehensible carriadagain. Many tangents, much confusion.

Immigration, asylum seeking, lack of affordable housing are key points for all of us, it’s important to try and avoid posting things that just aren’t true

inflammatory suggestion I would expect from GB news

Much adored by many.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.