So, who votes for a government that improves the lives of Bankers, and ensures the excessive profits of energy companies, but needs all the "levelling up" money to pay for the holes in Brexit?

And when it comes to deposits- there are those with 'Bank of Mum and Dad' - and the rest who don't have a scoobidoo chance.

I suggest you check the planning permission and the ancillary planning agreement on the planning authority’s website Fleurpepper. I have negotiated many such agreements covering provision of such things as affordable housing, provision of schools or
places, infrastructure such as schools or school places, bypasses, train and bus stations, doctors’ surgeries, shops - all manner of infrastructure.

Germanshepherdsmum

Well, one of those philanthropic men, in the mid 80s, funded the building of the new maternity hospital where my son was born - in memory of his mother who died in childbirth. Another, James Dyson, has funded some major projects recently. And that’s just two plucked out of the air.

The Victorian philanthropists were also sending boys up their chimneys to sweep them and employing servants such as my great grandmother to get up before dawn to light their fires.

I'm thinking I guess of the reformers and philanthropists - activists - of the Victorian and Edwardian eras who attempted to improve and change the lives of the disadvantaged - like William Armstrong, George Cadbury, George Peabody and Lord Rowton, who built housing, hostels, schools and hospitals. Some faced outright hostility I believe when they laid out their plans.

My local hospital also has a maternity wing paid for by a charitable wealthy local and, in fact, the area I lived in previously had something similar. But those mentioned above were in a league of their own.

The Rowntree family also, who continue to be philanthropists today.

And what have they got to do with this thread? The Cadbury's and Rowntrees were (still are- one of the Cadbury's was my neighbour for many years) Quakers, with very strict views on wealth and looking after their workers, housing, education, health, etc. Are you really saying GSM that this is the case with the majority of City Traders!?! and those in the top echelons of Financial Services today?

GrannyGravy13

volver

You would be lucky to get a flat for that amount round here, so no £325,000 does not make you rich.

I'd love to hear you explain that to Jack Monroe.

Really funny, Jack lives near one of our AC a true Essex Person and a brilliant campaigner.

The reason she is downsizing her rented home is because she donates all her earnings to worthwhile local charities.

From what I've read in Jack's own blog she's downsizing because she can no longer afford the rental of the property she rented with her SO with whom she has now split up. She's on a fixed-term contract (or was) which is now maintained entirely by her.

She was also, back in July, looking for a job (any job) because freelance writing just doesn't pay the bills.

She's not in the best of health, either, suffering from osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis and a calcified shoulder joint, together with recurring respiratory infections. Not to mention her ongoing mental health problems with which she battles it seems on a permanent basis.

I follow Jack because I often use her recipes - or adapt them - everything is costed and she gives food values which is really helpful. I often find her recipes very useful if I have stuff left in the 'fridge that needs to be used up - or those various tins of things you buy because it seemed like a good idea at the time and which months later still sit in the food cupboard.

She is, for me, the most useful 'go-to' professional in cooking circles.

Dickens

GrannyGravy13

volver

You would be lucky to get a flat for that amount round here, so no £325,000 does not make you rich.

I'd love to hear you explain that to Jack Monroe.

Really funny, Jack lives near one of our AC a true Essex Person and a brilliant campaigner.

The reason she is downsizing her rented home is because she donates all her earnings to worthwhile local charities.

From what I've read in Jack's own blog she's downsizing because she can no longer afford the rental of the property she rented with her SO with whom she has now split up. She's on a fixed-term contract (or was) which is now maintained entirely by her.

She was also, back in July, looking for a job (any job) because freelance writing just doesn't pay the bills.

She's not in the best of health, either, suffering from osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis and a calcified shoulder joint, together with recurring respiratory infections. Not to mention her ongoing mental health problems with which she battles it seems on a permanent basis.

I follow Jack because I often use her recipes - or adapt them - everything is costed and she gives food values which is really helpful. I often find her recipes very useful if I have stuff left in the 'fridge that needs to be used up - or those various tins of things you buy because it seemed like a good idea at the time and which months later still sit in the food cupboard.

She is, for me, the most useful 'go-to' professional in cooking circles.

Jack is highly regarded and protected by locals.

I have no idea why volver introduced Jack into this thread.

Agree wholeheartedly with you. The developers manage to find loopholes after planning has been agreed and cut back on “affordable” housing. Trees too seem to be “accidentally” removed. We have a feudal attitude here where the local landowner is one of the richest Dukes in England and he can’t sell land quick enough. Local authority just roll over and tug their forelocks - they put up no fight.

Germanshepherdsmum

Those properties would simply cease to be built Casdon. Developers only build flats and houses for which there is a demand. A tenant’s ability to purchase is wholly dependent on saving a deposit and falling within mortgage lenders’ acceptability criteria. Developers are already required to provide a large percentage of affordable housing (for sale or rent) on private developments. Occasionally the local authority will accept a cash payment in lieu to enable them to provide the housing.

10% of new developments are required to be affordable housing. New housing developments come with a premium, they aren’t at the bottom of the housing ladder though, are they? Landlords tend to buy older, often Victorian or Edwardian, or ex council houses; those are the ones most first time buyers could afford.

I worked in property development for many years Casdon so there’s not much you can teach me about it.

If buy to let investors are buying properties that you think first time buyers could afford, why is that? Could it be that the ftbs don’t meet lenders’ criteria, which are in place for a very good reason?

and in the old days BLT buyers didn't buy these houses and it kept the house for sale for people to buy... they took ages to sell but they were always homes at the end of it all

If you don’t meet lenders’ criteria you can’t buy. That’s easy to understand isn’t it? If you can afford to buy, you do. If not, you rent - and how nice if someone’s bought a lovely new property that you can rent rather than a slum.

I thought that the Government’s help to buy scheme only applied to new builds?

In which case the older properties would be out of their reach.

Indeed GG.

Germanshepherdsmum

I worked in property development for many years Casdon so there’s not much you can teach me about it.

If buy to let investors are buying properties that you think first time buyers could afford, why is that? Could it be that the ftbs don’t meet lenders’ criteria, which are in place for a very good reason?

You know the theory GSM, but because you subscribe to Tory values you are unable to see that over time markets would level out based on a demand from buyers if prices were lower. At present a large proportion of people who want to buy are priced out of the market, not because they would default on mortgages but because the purchase price has risen exponentially compared with income, and landlords are part of the issue because they have capital immediately available.

Germanshepherdsmum

If you don’t meet lenders’ criteria you can’t buy. That’s easy to understand isn’t it? If you can afford to buy, you do. If not, you rent - and how nice if someone’s bought a lovely new property that you can rent rather than a slum.

It is very simple indeed. And those who can't buy will forever be at the mercy of greedy landlords, especially in the UK. In other countries where renting is still the norm, not so much.

If first a time buyer could meet lenders’ criteria there is no reason why they should not buy a property rather than a would-be landlord.

It would be interesting to know how many posters objecting to what I say, and their children, own their homes.

Germanshepherdsmum

If you don’t meet lenders’ criteria you can’t buy. That’s easy to understand isn’t it? If you can afford to buy, you do. If not, you rent - and how nice if someone’s bought a lovely new property that you can rent rather than a slum.

Well, if you see an "us and them" society, I'm sure that's true. On the other hand, if people were not allowed to let at prices that fund the mortgage that others cannot have because of the inflated cost of housing, then there would be more homes for sale, and prices would come down.

If the builders could not see such ridiculous growth in house prices, they would begin to release their landbanks. Then more houses could be built.

The employment of extra builders, etc., would bring money into many of the real markets, for food, furnishings, etc., and those pushed down by this government could begin to look forward to the future once again.

So "nice" GSM? The only people who will get "nice" in your view of the world are those who have turned the country around to make it pretty "nice" for themselves already.

Germanshepherdsmum

It would be interesting to know how many posters objecting to what I say, and their children, own their homes.

Just one GSM. Just one.

Fleurpepper

Germanshepherdsmum

If you don’t meet lenders’ criteria you can’t buy. That’s easy to understand isn’t it? If you can afford to buy, you do. If not, you rent - and how nice if someone’s bought a lovely new property that you can rent rather than a slum.

It is very simple indeed. And those who can't buy will forever be at the mercy of greedy landlords, especially in the UK. In other countries where renting is still the norm, not so much.

Why are landlords always portrayed as ‘greedy’ on here? It is perplexing indeed.Market forces indicate to agencies and landlords what to charge in rent.
In many European countries, renting is often cheaper but not always, but the main consideration whether renting or buying comes down to price because land in the UK is more expensive as there is less of it, we are so much smaller than France or Germany or Spain for example.There is so much demand here for housing and buying land is so dear.

Saetana

I have neither the time nor the inclination to read through ten pages of posts so... What is the problem with removing the cap on bankers bonuses? Its not coming out of public money - in fact said bankers will be paying hefty taxes on those bonuses and, let's face it, the treasury could do with all the money they can get at the moment. This was an EU rule that they themselves are in the process of relaxing - we need to remain competitive as the world's second largest financial centre. What on earth you are going on about regarding levelling up money going to pay for the holes in Brexit I have no idea? Care to elaborate and provide some proof of your allegation?

So, you can't be bothered to wade through he previous pages but you expect an answer when many answers have already been given! Lazy or what?

Daisy, if there were rent controls again - you may not remember them but I do - people would not let. There would be a dearth of rental properties available. Some might sell, others sit tight. It would not induce lenders to change lending criteria. Some may be able to buy, others not. Developers buy land at prices based on expected sale prices. They would not start building to sell at lower prices. They would sit on the land. I’m afraid you’re not living in the real world of property development which I inhabited for decades.

Part of the the demand for housing comes from foreigners and not just the very rich. The 90 year old mother of one of my friends was forced out of her home by the landlord who wanted to sell to Chinese investors who child was at uni in Bristol.

By to let landlords usually own a property before going down the buy to let route so find it easier to borrow funds for the next property and then the next.

Does anyone remember the former school teachers who built up a property empire, starting in the late 80s? Their empire which reached 1000 properties is in Kent and they started to sell back in 2005. At the time the article was written (Mail on Line in June 2005) they had sold 100 houses to Chinese and Indian investors and hoped to make one hundred million pounds profit by the end of the next year.

I'm wondering what they did with the profits (after tax).

DaisyAnne

Germanshepherdsmum

It would be interesting to know how many posters objecting to what I say, and their children, own their homes.

Just one GSM. Just one.