Should older people move house to make way for the young?

We have a very nice modern family house. I’d happily move to a small bungalow but there are so few around here that the prices are too high.

Back in the 1970s modern timber frame houses were very popular and many traditional builders put up estates of them and we bought one. That came from the factory with everything ready . The builder put it up in days and then put a brick exterior to it.

I remember those. A local builder was putting up a small estate of these timber framed houses and we were tempted to buy one but didn't in the end as there were no facilities nearby. That estate somehow got planning permission even though it was in a National Park.

Modular houses have been around since time began. My 15th century house is modular build. If you have ever seen the barn raising in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers you will remember how uickly that went up with a pre constructed timber frame.

Back in the 1970s modern timber frame houses were very popular and many traditional builders put up estates of them and we bought one. That came from the factory with everything ready . The builder put it up in days and then put a brick exterior to it.

But the problem is not how houses are built and what method is used to build them, neither does it matter what size it is .

Builders will only build houses they can sell, and if there are fewer people wanting to buy houses they will simply not build any, no matter what size or how uickly they can be built.

Reducing the price will not make any difference. the reason people are not buying houses at the moment is because of the uncertain political and economic situation and builders expect to make a profit on each house. They will not sell houses for less than the cost of building them. Of course there will always a few people able or having to move, biut talk to anyone selling a house and they will tell you that they have few viewers.

We moved last year. It took us 15 months to sell a house in road where they usually went in days, what is more their were 5 houses on the market at the same town. More than had been on the market in the whole of the previous 25 years. The house we have bought had been on the market for nearly 2 years.

if we want more houses then the government must provide the money to build public sector houses and to get the private market moving the government, I don't care what party it is needs to provide us with a stable growing economy where people can risk thinking ahead further than last nights, rant from Trump or Keir Starmers latest little jaunt abroad.

Basgetti

Allira

I’m sure things will change in future. I think there are plans to add one’s pension pot in to the final estate.

There probably are, but why? Surely one's private pension pot dies with you. Pension providers/insurance companies are the ones who gain anyway as many people never receive the full amount plus interest back in annuities.

It doesn’t die with you. If my husband pre deceases me, it passes to me (albeit a reduced rate).

So they could possibly tax the pension pot at 40%, then what happens? The widow/ widower might not be paying tax at 20% even with the receipt of the pension. Does the widowed spouse get an even more reduced rate?

I think this might be another potty idea, an extra tax burden on those who least deserve it but failing to tackle those who do.

Allira

^I’m sure things will change in future. I think there are plans to add one’s pension pot in to the final estate.^

There probably are, but why? Surely one's private pension pot dies with you. Pension providers/insurance companies are the ones who gain anyway as many people never receive the full amount plus interest back in annuities.

It doesn’t die with you. If my husband pre deceases me, it passes to me (albeit a reduced rate).

Putting up 'modern prefabs' rapidly will help the housing shortage but what happens to all those traditionally built houses on new estates which remain unsold?

What land will these houses be built on? Infill, brownfield, Greenfield or arable farmland?

Finally, there never seem to be plans for the infrastructure to support all these new houses and no road building to avoid small towns and the surrounding expanding villages becoming one large traffic jam.

We cannot just keep throwing up more and more houses without thinking of the consequences.

I'm sure there are better examples but thought I'd find a few for you to see.

www.whathouse.com/architecture-and-design/modular-homes-a-world-away-from-prefab/?hl=en-GB

And this - 43 homes in 43 days
www.northstowe.com/43homes43days?hl=en-GB

And this coming to Leeds:
www.archdaily.com/885298/white-arkitekter-and-citu-release-first-images-of-climate-innovation-district-in-leeds?hl=en-GB

The UK is moving past "experimental" modular housing and now the numbers are rapidly increasing (about 15% of new builds are at leasg partly modular) . They aren't up there numbers-wise with traditional brick yet but the quality and speed of what is actually being delivered seems to be good. And fast.

Modern "prefabs" (MMCs) are some of the highest-performing homes in Europe and we are finally upping our game with the "10 day house". I suppose this may have had a rocky start but I rgink the trajectory is very good.

The industry has survived the factory closures of the early to mid 2020s and what’s left is apparently stable (according to what I've been reading).
Also we now have backing for building of £39 billion in government money.

I think we will see these new Modern Methods of Construction homes more and more.
They will ultimately save resources and be easy to live in.

A condition of the February 2026, bidding for the new homes Programme is that if developers want some of thae £39 billion, they have to include modular or prefab elements in their plans. This is how they will be able to scale up.

This is from

Government ‘300 k-homes’ Target Accelerating MMC Adoption

Westminster’s target of 370,000 annual completions and 1.5 million new units by 2030 quadruples the output gap that traditional trades can realistically fill[2]. Long-run pipeline visibility is encouraging contractors to scale facilities such as Laing O’Rourke’s 25,000 m² Explore Manufacturing plant, which shifted from bespoke precast to standardized volumetric products. Scotland’s Housing Emergency Action Plan allocates USD 6.1 billion and already shows 90% MMC penetration across funded schemes, offering proof of concept for volume certainty. Wales and Northern Ireland backstop roll-outs with dedicated MMC grant lines, creating a UK-wide policy flywheel. The predictable demand stream lowers investment risk and accelerates lender comfort with factory amortization horizons.

Source: www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/united-kingdom-prefabricated-buildings-market

It also seems that (against what you might think) standardisation of units makes it easier to make changes and tweaks to design so they don't all have to look the same - or be the same configuration. The engineering is fantastic and every screw is traceable so we will know what's in everything and fingers crossed there will be no more Grenfell disasters

It looks good to me.
I'm actually feeling more positive for the future.

I spent an hour yesterday looking at modular homes as on my house-hunting Internet travels I found a decent plot with planning permission.

I would definitely look at this if I was going to build for myself. Some of them are beautiful. Some look like traditional homes. There are lots of ways to make them different. For builders of volume I think it's a no-brainer.

JaneJudge

People in council/HA houses have to pay a bedroom tax for their spare rooms/bedrooms. I’m not sure if this applies to all people receiving housing benefit. I know that a separate reception room downstairs (so for arguments sake - a dining room when there is already a lounge) would also be classed as a spare room/bedroom

People who rent privately or live in owned properties where they need assistance with their mortgage have money deducted from their claims if they have extra rooms than the Govt think they need.
In the past where poor paying tenants have had their rent paid directly to us, they have had teenage children moving in and out after rows but didn't notify the authorities or us. Cue the Benefits clawing back the overpaid rent directly from our bank accounts with very little notice. It was a nightmare trying to keep track!

It sounds lovely

One problem, for those in social housing, can be the lack of attractive alternatives compared to where they live.
A village near me has a small group of local authority housing dating from the thirties. They are three bedroomed homes with good gardens, opposite the primary school, and leading to the village green with a children's playground.
The residents are mostly older. They sit outside their houses, talk to each other and to the parents and children at the end of school. Many have an honesty box for produce from their gardens .
A downsize offer would be a small flat, in the centre of town, with no outside space, because that is all that the local authority have to offer.

People in council/HA houses have to pay a bedroom tax for their spare rooms/bedrooms. I’m not sure if this applies to all people receiving housing benefit. I know that a separate reception room downstairs (so for arguments sake - a dining room when there is already a lounge) would also be classed as a spare room/bedroom

Our small market town has several shops with tatty unlived flats above them, but large living space.

Why are they not requisitioned, renovated and used to house singles, couples, small families?

And before anyone says they would be unsuitable for children, I think of a friend of mine. When she was just 18, she and her boyfriend ‘had’ to get married as she was a month off having their first baby, (this was the early 70’s).

I asked her years later why they hadn’t got married months before when she was first expecting.

She said her young boyfriend was determined not to start married life living with parents, rentals were in short supply, but they managed to get a cheap flat above a furniture shop. They both worked hard, went on to have two more children, moved into a little (mortgaged) terraced house and eventually built a bungalow in town.

But they managed in an upstairs flat, with a baby and pram etc, because that was how you did, back then.

It would be great to see these empty properties lived in again.

Theres also a sad lacking in larger bungalows, of 3 bed size.They dont acknowledge that some families need these as they're still together due to disabilities, or health problems,or need a room for a carer and that not all needing one are over 55's anymore.

The 'affordable' houses begin that way, but in 6mths the rent rise is nearly £60 a month.Then again a rise each year till theyre 'unaffordable'.

Yes, the social housing are the ones where they probably should feel obliged to down- size for younger,or indeed,larger families to take up the oppertunity they themselves had when they moved in decades ago- my ex in-laws,have a 3bed house still,with an extra downstairs room(which could be used for dining or even an extra bedroom if needed) and a nice big fenced in garden on 3 sides, but theres them,and one very adult child.(46) so could move to a smaller house, or even a bungalow would be better for them- Its not fair to families with maybe 3 or 4 or 5 children.There should be incentives of perhaps removal costs, and decent redecorating grants not just £30! That would barely buy one tin of paint these days.(its what i was offered once when i took a rented house about 16 years ago, & i never even got it in the end!) 😆Sadly i doubt its gone up much.

MaggsMcG

This is just my opinion: if people are in council or housing association I feel they should be encouraged to downsize, even if they have lived there a long time.
However the council and HA need to give them an incentive because moving isn't cheap and decorating probably needs doing.
I do think if people are in their own owned homes its up to them. Again, its blinking more expensive and disruptive for home owners to move.

The words "encouraged" and "incentive" are, I'm afraid, words often used by central and local government to mask a culture of bullying and co-ercion.

Where are you Dickens? I would be interested in a 5 bed house for cost of(or less) of a new build.😄

cc

*watermeadow*. "There are lots of retirement flats with huge service charges.
There are also lots of old council houses with three bedrooms, occupied mainly by single old people. They couldn’t down-size if they wanted to as there is nowhere at all which is smaller and cheaper.
The answer is, of course, to build lots and lots of affordable homes and housing association homes. That’s not going to happen as builders are only interested in large expensive houses".

We can see this in our area, there are more than 3000 new properties either built or in the planning stage (mainly flats) but a relatively small proportion are social housing or "affordable".
Large developers are doing the work, and many are not suitable for families as they are quite small and have no outside space other than in some cases a small balcony. The ones built for profit are relatively luxurious with extra bathrooms and expensive finishes.
Initially the service charges are not too bad, but we all know that these will go up dramatically as the building ages. There are lifts in the buildings so they could be suitable for older people. However most cost over £435K even for a one bed flat, though a very limited number of "affordable" homes start at £355 with deposit top-ups.

Developers submit initial plans for permission and promise to devote a (miniscule) percentage of said developement to affordable housing.

When built, well whaddyaknow? The "affordable" properties have somehow not materialised........

We have a large house which we have developed and poured money into over the years. Subject to health issues we intend to stay because nearly everyone we know who have ‘downsized’ pine for their previous ( more private) places. There are a lot of retirement villages here and they are all very flash with swimming pools,bowling greens etc but the same people gawping at you every day , not too much privacy. That’s us, though and I know many would disagree.

NO is the simple answer, I have lived in a three bedroom bungalow in a rural area for the past 25 years. Worked hard since leaving school, brought up three children attended university as a mature student, while working at weekends. I am fortunate that I’ve never needed to use government benefits or assistance during that time. What I have I have earned through very hard work.
I have had my adult children return home for long periods, due to divorce, relationship break ups etc. I was pleased that I had the room to offer that support when needed.
Even if we did move out I doubt that many young people could afford our homes anyway.
Why doesn’t the government build houses that young people can afford, stamp duty free along with deposit free or small deposit mortgages too. But why isn’t there a push on building affordable starter homes.
Following WW2 there were housing shortages and my parents lived in a static caravan where I was brought up until they get a house. Other relatives lived in prefabs . Surely the government could look at modern easy / rapid build housing schemes to accommodate the young.
Oh but that would require the government applying some common sense. Why would they when it’s easier to blame pensioners for staying put, living longer, have a pension we’ve already paid for. I can’t get my head round the fact that we’ve paid taxes for our future pension so why didn’t they invest this money to accrue interest and build, that’s what private pensions do. Finally we have very low pensions compared to other poorer European countries.
In light of the state of our country, perhaps the politicians should forgo a wage rise, sell their very large houses and second homes and stop claiming unwarranted expenses. Then get rid of the House of Lords a total waste of money. Employ people who have knowledge in the position they are given.
Stop paying people who have been sacked. No other company would pay someone who was sacked due to their incompetence or law breaking. But hey ho the government do. Why should past prime ministers get all the perks they do when they’ve finished their leadership, after all their job is done. I believe if prime ministers fail to put into action the points made on their manifesto’s this is making false claims and breach of promise. This should trigger a new election. After all if I claimed at an interview I would do A B & C then after getting the post failed to do it I would be given my marching orders.
Sorry I have gone off on a tangent, but fed up with the blame pensioners game, for the governments mismanagement and shortfalls.

As soon as the huge empty 7 bedroom mansions in London, primarily owned by absent Russian oligarchs but rarely occupied, are sold and repurposed for families, I'll consider downsizing from my modest semi. Until then, I won't.

M0nica

Allira

My family do not live near me so when they visit they stay with me. Am I supposed to put them up in a Travel Lodge?

Same here - especially as two bedrooms are filled with "stuff" that they use when they come.

We stay in a Premier Inn when we visit DS and family. We used to stay with his MiL, but she is 90 this year and we had started taking all our own bedding, towels etc, which meant changing the beds twice for a three night stay. so hotel it is.

Staying with them means taking ovet there bedroom, which is cluttered with stuff. Hotel is by far the best option

I'm not talking about us staying with them.
How long is your normal visit?

I'm talking about family, possibly from overseas, staying with us. Telling them to stay in a Premier Inn for a month, without a car unless they hire one (nearest Inn is 20 miles away) would not be fair after they have travelled 10,000 miles to visit us. .

What suits you would not suit ever family, we are all different.

FranP

ViceVersa

Maybe I'm not 'getting' it, but say if I was to downsize from a 5-bed house to a 1 or 2-bed, isn't that taking the smaller houses out of the first-time buyer market?

Not really, if the availability of mid-size family homes was eased then first timers may be able to move upwards. What is happening now is that there are few bigger homes so they are scarcer and this drives prices up, so youngsters are extending and removing garages/lofts to make room.

But if the number of homes available stays unchanged and all are occupied and everyone takes one step up until you get to the top when you step down to take the empty small houses, unless you stop anyone getting on the housing ladder who is not already on it, then it will put pressure on prices at the lowest level as downsizers and new entrants will be competing with each other.

Builders only build houses they know they can sell and the size of the houses they build has no effect on the price of houses overall. The same builders will build large houses in one area and small houses in other.

Where I now live the builders are building flats and small houses because that is what the demand is for. Where we used to live, they are building, flaats and small houses, but also many 4 bedroomed detached houses because the area is a more prosperous area with more people earning higher salaries who can afford to buy these houses.

Builders are businesses, neither social services, nor charities. They build what they can sell. Currently they are building less than the government would like because the economic situation is so fraught people are delaying decisions on any big money purchases, not because they cannot afford them but because of their fears for the future.

This is more about social housing.

You pay a subsidised rent for years and years in order to bring up your family, and then expect to occupy a large home meant to help other young folks start their own families.

Yes, by all means keep your home if you must, just pay full economic rent for it.