Should people raised in countryside expect to be able to stay there?

I think if people wish to stay near birthplace and family they should be able to do so... I've always felt sympathy with young people who live and work in small towns and villages who are simply priced out of their preferred area because those who can buy up the land or homes..

Surely if everyone kept their families small there would be no need to build in these areas as the population would remain the same? Isn't this country already populated enough? I know that is a simplification.

There is no point building houses where there is no work so the local situation should always be taken into account.

Having done as my name suggests I suppose I don't fully appreciate why people are so bothered about moving from where they were brought up. I feel that all our moves have enriched out lives in some way and made us much more adaptable than we might otherwise have been.

"Affordable housing" is planned in and around our tiny village. I have mixed feelings about it. I can see why young people might want to buy in the village in which they were born or brought up (although work is short round here) but the sprawling nature of these rather unattractive starter homes does not enhance the village.

I do not know what the answer is - homes that would fit in better are more costly to build and would be beyond the means of the very people at which they are aimed.

I think it is sad when homes for sale in rural areas are snapped up at inflated prices for holiday homes meaning that young people who might have lived there all of their lives are simply priced out of the market. Also I think that when planning is passed for new homes (starter homes or otherwise) there should be strict stipulation that residents/family should get first chance.

I know a small village in Northumberland where affordable homes where in desperate short supply. One of the big builders built a small estate on the outskirts of the village and on the day of the first release there were people queuing at midnight the night before to put their deposit down. Needless to say most of the people who actually secured a property were not from the village or indeed Northumberland at all. The small estate is basically a holiday village with the odd owner occupier scattered around. Its sinful and has ruined the whole balance of a small pretty village.

In Northumberland there are villages that are now just now holiday home villages as the young local people cant afford the £250,000.00+ that the houses are selling for, the schools, Post Office, corner shop, pub and most of the ammenities have gone so the few locals that are left have to travel for anything they need.
Theres no local work so the younger people need stronger travel links to the larger areas if they can still manage to stay, but then cant afford to buy a house and rental is dominated by holiday lets and too expensive.

I am lucky the village where we have a house still manages to have a primary school, post office and small shop but these are just holding on by the skin of their teeth.

Who is selling the houses that are too expensive for young couples to buy? And are there jobs in the places where they grew up?

Lilygran I can testify that in many rural areas there is no shortage of housing (although the definition of "affordable" can be questioned!) but the availability of employment is the real problem.

Yes phoenix but what is the point of building (say) 50 new homes each costing £200k and the only people who can afford them are the rich second home owners? The problem remains the same. Also local economy/employment (shops, post office, pub etc) can only thrive or even exist if there is a constant business linked to the amount of occupied homes in the area. Having a small estate consisting of holiday homes only occupied in the summer is no good.

Let's face it this has gone on for years and years. It's hardly a new phenomenon.

I think it's a bit of a cheek coming from a bloke who has two homes though.

You are very lucky if you stay near to your parents for many reasons, work placement and cost being the obvious reasons for moving, usually to improve your families chances and living standards.

Our village has infact had two small housing estate projects and a horrible solar panel farm passed recently. There was much objection but at the end of the day it does allow for families to maybe reunite but only if they can afford to move to an over-priced area!.

This country has become the Old Lady Who Lived In A Shoe, too many children she didn't know what to do. The trouble is it can only get worse!!!

If you live in a commuter village - we live 12 miles north of Cambridge, then affordable housing is definitely needed for young couples trying to get on the housing ladder. Both need to be in work to pay the mortgage so living near grandparents may solve childcare problems. Most of the larger villages still have a school, shop and pub but these will close down if there is no housing for those that are likely to support them.

gillybob I think we are agreeing, unless I have misunderstood?

I think they should, why wouldn't they it is there home afterall

When we first went to live in Cornwall 38 years ago housing was a problem, so was the lack of employment. I can't believe it has got any better since then. Second homes were already a big problem, with villages being half empty all winter and people bringing their own food with them so the local shops got no support from them. The lucky young couples were able to set up home in caravans on their families' farm land. The others had to move away.
To add insult to injury the second home owners were the ones who would immediately complain about foot paths, cockerels crowing, muck spreading and all the other things that go with country living.

Around here several housing associations have built small developments of around a dozen or so 'affordable' rented and shared ownership houses which don't overwhelm the village and give priority to local families. Seems to work.

Can anyone explain what happens to "affordable housing" when, in due course it is sold to the next house-buyer? Surely market forces will mean that it quickly loses its "affordable" label and it reaches the level the local market operates at.

I also have a problem with the term used in local plans for housing schemes.
Just what is "sustainable development"? No-one at the local planning office can define precisely what it means yet it is ubiquitous in everything I read about the plans for the massive house building which we are told will kick start the economy and which we are told we need.

Very near our two almost linked villages there is going to be a massive housing development. Again on Green Belt. We have already had one recently.
Yes, there will be starter homes.
But I know for a fact that most - 500 - have already been bought by Westminster Council ( London ) so they can ship out their misplaced persons to my neck of the wood.
For what? Jobs?
I cannot pretend that I am happy about this.

I believe that the obligation placed on developers who wanted planning consent to provide a certain percentage of 'affordable' homes has been relaxed. No comment.

When we moved to Mold, North Wales, in 1966, we encountered real hostility and were told we had forced up the price of houses. When I asked the people accusing us why the Welsh seller had not sold us the house at a lower price, there was no answer. The same goes for Cornwall, the Lakes, etc. The locals are happy to sell at inflated prices, then blame the buyers for forcing their children out of the housing market.

Please accept that this may be wrong, but what I have been told about the way things work with regard to a development in our village (which was built about 3 years ago) is this.

28 properties built
9 set aside for "affordable housing for local people"

These houses are first made available to people living within the parish boundary.
If no takers, they are then made available to people living within the District Council area.

If still no takers, they are then made available to residents within the County Council area.
If these properties are still not taken, then they are on the open market.

I have neighbours in Housing Association property, we found ourselves both in the village hall when there was an opportunity to see a model of the proposed development. Our neighbours said how much they would love to be able to buy their own home, but even the properties designated as "affordable" were beyond their reach. They both work, him full time, her part time, and do not smoke, go to the pub, they have one car between them, (nothing flash or even modern, I think it is a 10 year old VW estate)

They are still living in a housing association property which is really too small for them, and the new housing development seems to have a fair number of houses that are let,(presumably by private landlords?) plus a few that are occupied by people who live away during the week.

It's the same in my area, phoenix. I don't know how they decide what constitues 'affordable', but the prices are far too high for local young people who are lucky if they're earning £20,000.

Thank you Ana for enforcing my point.

For the record, my area is North Devon.

Sorry Phoenix I may not have made my point clear. Absolutely yes we are totally agreeing!

Thank goodness for that!

I hate the term 'affordable'. Who thought it up anyway? If you have no money - nothing is affordable. If you're a multi-millionaire you can buy a whole estate. It's meaningless.

gaga has made the point I was about to make. They are only 'affordable' the first time they are bought, as with council houses. Once they have been bought they are then sold on at a huge profit so they are no longer 'affordable'. I wonder what the point of that is? Surely it would be better to spend such money on housing association accommodation for those who cannot afford to buy.

I have lived in a 'posh ghetto' and didn't like it. I far prefer to live somewhere with a good mix of people and think that new developments should always include smaller, cheaper properties.