Great news. And already has the tram running through it.[emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
Great news. And already has the tram running through it.[emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The 15 or 20 minutes neighbourhood is a real conspiracy theory rabbit hole on social media.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
On the face of it it's an idea to promote local amenities that meet the needs of the local populace and allow the basic needs of society to be withing walking distance of said population. The conspiracy goes it's a plan to trap us all in local ghettoes with permission needed to leave your own sector.
Conspiracy theories get weirder all the time. It’s hard to imagine anyone would believe stuff like that but there are obviously people out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Go on youtube, do your own research."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...box=1685386957
Promising. The value from the granting of planning permission should be given to the public who grant the planning permission.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry ozy, are you suggesting that community councils should be the decision makers on planning applications? Dear god, no!! NIMBYism means nothing would get built.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
No, the article is about allowing councils to compulsory purchase land for development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
So I’m Edinburgh that could allow the council to buy the land owned by Murray at Ratho for the price of farmland. It can then give it the appropriate planning permission and build the houses. The council would bank the profit from their actions, we all get new houses and Murray gets no windfall from planning permission that we gift. I think this will result in more planning applications being granted rather than less if the council coffers were being swelled by doing it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So why can the council get planning permission and Murray can’t? It’s a massive conflict of interest seems as the council are the ones who grant it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Refuse the developer, buy it from the the developer, gain planning? That would be scandalous.
A right to buy over certain plots or farmland would be fine.
For example, a landowner who could gain planning for 100-200 houses in a desirable area, but chooses not too. That would be a reasonable use of such powers.
Why should Murray benefit from planning permission that the public grants? It’s the public who have to put up with the loss of green space, therefore it’s the public who should benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's what confused me before. The public don't grant planning permission, the council planning officers are the ones who determine planning applications. More contentious applications usually being determined by the elected members of the planning committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The government know roughly how many new houses we need to build. It should have the power to buy the land it needs to build them. It can then build to a timetable that suits our needs and not a developers needs. No more land banking. House builders can then start making their profits from building houses and not land appreciation. It will encourage them to build quicker, invest in productivity etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Local govt is incentivised to provide housing and we all benefit from the healthier balance sheets in local govt. Less council tax rises etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're forgetting one major hurdle, the Scottish Government has no borrowing power! Where is this magic money tree to buy hectares of land and who will build the 'affordable housing'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Land that makes you massive profits doesn't need to come from a magic money tree. I think it's a great idea but dubious it happens. We desperately need more housing however it happensQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
There is no doubt it needs Labour in London to make it happen. We are not allowed to make decisions like this in Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s been talked about for years by economists. Be great if it eventually happens. It’s a bit mad that private individuals profit of something that is gifted by the public when it’s the public who lose out on the amenity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Please, please explain what is being gifted by 'the public'? Who owned the land at Hermiston Gate before Murray, for example?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
If the land is worth x as farmland and the council allows planning permission then it’s worth y then who should gain from that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
In my opinion it should be the council on our behalf who gave the planning permission that realise the gain. After all, it is us who lose the unspoilt farmland and have houses there instead and we will also have to provide amenities for those new houses from the public purse.
The system just now is not working and is discouraging building in favour of speculating. We need building to be happening a lot faster.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2348000.html
More here. It’s a good policy. Not sure if Labour will see it through though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I live in the countryside. When I moved here in 1989 there were 13 houses. There are now 29. The farmer who owned the land sold it as individual plots for development. He benefited financially from the sales. Why should anyone else benefit from his enterprise?
My biggest town is Perth, currently expanding north and west to the tune of 5,000 or so houses. But also schools, retail and other amenities as part of the planning approval. If this isn't happening where you live then it is down to your local authority. But Perth and Kinross is getting added value from developers.
Even when the Council own the land they seem to take an age to get any development off the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Take the redundant land that was part of Meadowbank. Sports centre. It’s been lying dormant for 5-7 years. Just last month a planning application for housing etc has been submitted.
I would guess it might might be another 5 years before a brick is laid.
Is this not what Scottish Futures Trust was set up to do. Oil the wheels of Scottish Developments .Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Planning permission is controlled by the council though. It was in their gift to turn down that farmer. And why should he be lucky enough to get permission but not all farmers who own land?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
The farmers profit should not come from the uplift in land price at the stroke of a pen in a planning dept, it should come from the supply of fantastic houses.
Every farmer in the country would jump at the chance to build on their land. They can’t all get to for obvious reasons. Your farmer was given a gift from the people of Scotland. He had a lottery win. That can’t be what our planning system is?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I tthink that's a very narrow interpretation. Council planning officers don't make decisions in isolation, otherwise it would be a system with no consistency, open to bribery and blackmail of individuals. Planning officers implement policy, in line with the legislation, national policy and guidance and local plans set to meet SG requirements around the SHIP and their own agreed priorities through the LHS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Where decisions need escalated, you are right they will be determined by elected members, or Scottish Ministers. Critically, they are acting as democratically-elected representatives of the people - in essence they speak for 'the public' in that capacity.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
In one of your other posts you said you weren't sure that Labour would see this through, if elected. Technically it's not in the manifesto yet anyway, but what do you think would lead to it not going ahead?
Just that I’m not convinced they’ll see it through to the manifesto stage never mind after elected. Not just a Labour thing, I’m wary of any party doing anything about housing in the UK. I would be checking quickly to see how many house builders. developers and land owners are donating to Labour just now and watch if it rises over the next 18 month to the election. Plenty time for it to be quietly dropped. Not a dig at Labour as all parties guilty of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
We are getting close now to it being politically worthwhile though so maybe.
Couldn’t say for sure but I think that housing must be close to number one issue for the under 40’s?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Spoken like a true Thatcherite! Not so much Moulin Yarns as Moolah Yarns :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Developments like these don't reaally strike me as genuine enterprise. It's not as if the farmer 'built' the land, is it? What he has done is monetized a land asset. Depending on whether he inherited it or bought it at land value for farming, he may have made a massive return solely from market speculation.
I don’t mind people making money from adding value. The council added to the value by giving the planning permission. The farmer added to the value by building the houses. The profits should be split accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/16636...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I get where you are coming from. My own concerns are that, as in 1997, there is a massive need for direct investment into a number of problem areas, but the economy has been wrecked under the Tories. It's at least a two-term job to fix the mess and then improve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I also think there are tipping points every so often though and sometimes it isn't always predictable when they happen, except in hindsight. The other thing is that while it is challenging to be trying to fighting on several fronts, or putting out the fire in different rooms of the house, there is also an opportunity there.
I would hope to see Labour coming forward in the run-up to the next election not just with policies in all these areas that need repaired, but also with a compelling narrative that binds them together - almost like a Beveridge Report for the 2020s.
I think there are the indicators that we may see this - fixing what the Tories broke and offering the security of an affordable roof over your head, the security of being able to heat your home and feed those in it, the security of being looked after when you need looked after, not on a waiting list for two years, the security of growing up with opportunity and growing old with dignity. There's a broad appetite for that, if the party can get the message across.
I don't think the farmer built the houses according to MY, he sold the plots - speculative acquisition originally by him, or by the purchasers when he sold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
To be honest, I don't mind him making money from it so as long as he pays his taxes (and the taxes are set at a level which isn't punitive but do refelct that society is something we all contribute to and take from, in a way that is fair and benefits the common good as well as the individual)
I’m hearing this enough to believe they are sincere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It can also be linked to the greenbelt policy.
Some reference commission for new towns successes.
Land supply is a parallel problem to planning. I’m wholly in favour but I want to see sub-regional planning bodies wrapped around London and maybe elsewhere.
Very excited about this. It’s been a long, long time coming!!!
You may be surprised then by the level of support for (and active involvement with) Labour from significant sections of the housebuilding and housing association sectors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The Tories aren’t engaging with the industry. “Bugger business” as Alex Johnson said
Some of the plots were redundant farm buildings and the rest were field margins with other properties making arable farming difficult. Fine for livestock but not mixed farming. This was certainly not prime agricultural land. The council has benefited from additional council tax from LARGE properties, £600k+ each.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Assuming the houses were band H, 30 would generate around £100,000? P&K has a gross budget of over £500m and a significant overspend IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
It would be interesting to know whether P&K know what their spend is on emergency accommodation, out-of-area placements etc and see if CPO legislation would have allowed them to build, using prudential borrowing, and divert the money from facilitating poor outcomes for those in unsatisfacory housing positions.
That's great!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Affordable housing for local people then?
Some New Towns anybody?
100k more than pkc got before, a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Lots of new people in the area to support the local economy, a good thing.
Employment for local businesses, a good thing.
At least 4 of the properties are also business owners, employing local people, a good thing.
Not everything is a negative you know.
Building new houses is good. The system as it is just now doesn’t supply enough of them. It has to change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I gave an example of Perth, which will grow by more than 13% in the coming years. At least one local authority is tackling the shortage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It’s a sensible solution if you can introduce regional planning authorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
I’d love to do one. As an ex-new town kid, I’ve got a few opinions on how to do it better!
That's short-sighted IMO - once you factor in infrastructure costs for the council, and whether those represented a net loss on the section 75s, then there's a risk to the council.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Perhaps more importantly, there is an opportunity cost. P&K spend at least £2m on out-of-area residential placements for looked after children. It's well-established and agreed by everybody that out-of-area leads to poor outcomes. It feels like the powers around CPOs being talked about may have given P&K the opportunity to save money and deliver better outcomes, if managed properly.
As for the rest of your post, I'm assuming the business owners already employed people before they moved into their new homes? So that's a moot point. Out of interest, was any affordable housing required?
Absolutely nothing you say is relevant for individual plots sold for self build which is how the plots were sold. This wasn't a developer building speculative housing. No public money was spent on infrastructure such as roads for infill building plots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I know he didn't build the houses - you already said. The farmer monetised a land asset and drip-fed it to the market on the basis of its potential for building expensive homes. He didnt 'build' the land, he acquired it in some way, shape or form and let market forces increase its values. Which takes us back to the original point -he didn't exactly show enterprise here, but nevertheless if it is viable land for development, the council could CP it under the proposed legislation and put it to use that is good for a lot more. Let's face it, their finances are a matter of public record and something like this could be a much needed 'spend to save'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Of course, there may be good reasons why it isn't suitable. Nevertheless, using CPOs that reflect land value rather than hope value is an effective and economic tool to help tackle the housing crisis. Labour are right to be putting it out there, even if it reduces windfall profits for property and land speculators.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...team=editorial
Another blow for housing. Hopefully the council change what they need to change and still follow through.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If I was FM that is what I would do. I have no issue with being unfair on the face of it for the public good and CPOs are definitely for the Public Good when it comes to improving housing. I would only build state owned homes though and not seek to profit from land sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
I would grab back all the land that the Duke of Buccleuch etc etc sold to developers that sits there waiting for the areas to be rich enough to make massive profits from. I'd then take the land he hasn't sold and give the least value possible to buy it back. Much of it was essentially "public" land to start with that was gifted to the rich by the English Crown.
I wish the government would do more on Land Reform. They did a good job to start off with but when Andy Wightman lost his seat it all went quiet. Some of the work he did could have been used to make laws which could really transform Scotland.
In terms of the money needed I reckon the Tram project would cost more than buying huge amounts of land and making it social housing with appropriate infrastructure. We could afford that and the Queensferry Crossing so money is available for massive projects that are worthwhile and benefit huge numbers of citizens. Not sure over priced private housing that dilutes an already under resourced infrastructure benefits anyone particularly if profits end up in the Cayman Islands
The SG has land reform proposal going through consultation just now but I think there is zero chance it gets past Alistair Jack so I would get your hopes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...slater-4178611
This is stupidity from Slater as rents in Scotland are rising faster than rest of UK since she introduced it. At the very least, before going back to parliament to seek an extension, she should be commissioning a study to see what effect the policy has had so far.
This hurts young people and those who change tenancy regularly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/stat...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Housing market in for further shocks. Everything that happened under Truss has now happened again under Sunak, just took a bit longer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-..._medium=social
I honestly think we are heading for biggest crash since early 90’s.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's inevitable, the only question is how high the waves are going to be and how far they extend beyond the shore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000617293829
Large bit in today’s podcast about housing. They are talking about 30% house price falls.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am mortgage free and my next house is likely to be similar or slightly less in value. I want a crash and this time I want mortgage holders bailed put. Lower housing costs are a plus as far as I can see
Mortgage holders won’t be bailed out. The banks might be but not ordinary people.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Lower housing costs are a plus if you’re buying, but could see plenty people crushed under negative equity, your want will see thousands put into misery, and possibly lose their home.
as Ozy says, mortgage holders won’t be bailed out at all
In the long run low house prices are good. I actually deleted another paragraph about negative equity to replace it with a more simple version. I don't want anyone normal one property householder harmed but I am talking big picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by McD
I just can't see how normal people can continue to live the way house prices are. There needs to be a reset somehow and a crash could make home ownership a better prospect for the younger generation. An in a fairly short time it could mean workers quality of life greatly improves.
House prices have risen so sharply there can't be that many would be crushed under negative equity given the criteria for mortgages since 2008. The vast majority will have made a deposit and seen there house go up in value. We are miles away from the 130% mortgages and no checks on ability to pay the last time round. That isn't to ignore there would be issues but I guess far more would benefit compared to those who would suffer and it would be a cheaper fix to sort out negative equity than it would trying to fix the cost of housing for working people.
It may also mean house building is less profitable and the state can start to play a far bigger part in housing citizens.
None of that solves the problem of there not being enough houses. There needs to be more building of houses and no major party is serious about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just about every news outlet has a story about the mortgage crunch heading our way.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...27534d60d8.jpg
Given the areas of the country most affected, then there is at least a chance the govt does something about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why does it have to be a crash? A slowing down, yes, but a crash would create great instability and pain for many people.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
We need to have a discussion about long term fixed rate mortgages like they do in other countries. This would take mortgages out of the equation when rates change. People have got very used to historical low interest rates, but as we know variable rates can rise too. Much better to have certainty over the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Because the prices are already ridiculously high compared to wages. Much like inflation slowing the rise isn't enough, the balance between wages and house prices needs restored back to a reasonable level.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
But the collateral damage for individuals would be huge.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
The last sentence is where I addressed this. The Council can start Building houses again much like it did in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Millers and Cala etc building houses that are wildly beyond the vast majority of workers doesn't solve anything and they build when maximum profit is on offer. The public good doesn't factor into their thinking, the opposite probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
None of the big political parties are serious about solving anything. Inflation, poverty, starvation, climate change, sewerage issues, water shortages, insulating homes, etc, etc etc. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have ideas particularly when we can look back to a time when the same nation did have the vast majority of things you would want in a society
I’m not sure councils have the borrowing power or the compulsory purchase powers they need to start building houses in the numbers we need.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then give them it. The problems are all very clear and lots of them have pretty easy solutions or at least measures that would help that could easily be brought into play. The big issue isn't the problems it is that those in power are only concerned about saying and doing the right thing to stay in power and couldn't care less about solving problems. Someone in power in the UK has the levers to start a massive council house building programme, start acquiring the land that would need by using CPOs etc and start to assemble the workforce required to do so. While they are at it they can design these houses around schooling, health and care and having everything needed within a short walk or accessible through good public transport. It really isn't that difficult. I can't really see why anyone would be against mass council house building and it would at least start to ease the pressure in pretty short order. It isn't a vote winner though, bizarrely, or more likely it doesn't suit those doing the lobbying with the heaviest cheque books who fund massive Facebook campaigns etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Someone, at some point needs to say the UK is completely broken. We need to draw a line, get a fresh piece of paper and start building a society that works for the vast majority. No amount of tinkering at the edges, as the main parties promote, will solve anything as it is all connected to underinvestment, selling assets for pocket change and filtering public money to a tiny part of society.
I think donations to political parties from house builders might be a factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you were buying a house today would it be better to do it at 5% instead of 8% thats coming or wait 6 months for the supposedly crash thats coming?
The problem with your model is that many people aspire to property ownership. Should that also be a policy consideration? I'm mixed about that, but it is a factor that politicians have to consider.Quote:
Originally Posted by wookie70
As for the 'Britain is totally broken' rhetoric, I get why politicos use it, but it isn't reflected in everyone's experience. I think the 'year zero' approach is not as attractive as some would paint. Not least because it implies a lot of pain for individuals.
I completely agree with you about increased council housing and I would add in short term measures (such as repurposing offices) to provide student type accommodation for young people leaving home or coming to the country to work. I think it possible to do that without the wrecking ball.
I personally would never bet money on how the market will behave which is what that decision would be. I would buy if I saw a house I liked that I could afford and fix the rate. If market collapses then it could look a bad decision but if it doesn’t then you miss out on house you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by DH1875
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It has to be a crash so hedge funders can make money. Boom bust, an engineered pattern. Why do you think Truss and Kwartang were presented as competent?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
The hedge fund types are not the only people in the equation here. Do you seriously belive that the Tories would turn their back on homeowners? Who presented Truss and Kwarteng as competent - certainly not Sunak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
The press presented Truss as competent, the Tory Party presented her as their leader. Don't you remember?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Gove was on the telly this morning assiduously avoiding the question as whether the govt will help home owners.
What help do you think they will make available?
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I think it’s possible they turn their back on mortgage holders. Only 30% of householders have a mortgage these days. That’s a lot lower than previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They can’t really help directly. That would be horrendously unfair on non mortgage holders. They might take back control of interest rates and devalue the pound though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the run up to an election the Tories will turn their back on home owners with a mortgage - really? Also, peoplecwhobown without a mortgage still have an interest in house prices. Many envisage using the value of their house to buy care when they need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The only way I can see them helping is by cutting interest rates, taking away BofE independence and devaluing the currency. There is no other way to help? I just can’t see them doing that but I wouldn’t rule it out either.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's no way they would go for BoE independence before an election. Also, interest rate rises are to control inflation. That's a worldwide phenomenon. Rates will come down. The longer term issue is how we set rates for mortgages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Agree, they won’t do it. I think there is no help coming for mortgage holders.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tax relief on mortgage interest would be a start, they wont do that either though. Mortgage holders are in for a whole world of pain shortly if not already along with renters in the short term. Property prices will fall and there'll be a new wave of buy to let landlords buying them up at cheaper prices.
I didn't actually realise how much property prices had gone up in the last 2 - 3 years, properties in my area which were selling at around the £175k mark are now well over £220k at the moment, no idea if they're selling though.
Lobbying(that is the kind way to say bribing or buying off) is democracy in the UK. Housebuilder have ridiculous profits for what they actually do and I would strongly argue that they cost far more again as most estates appear to screw up local infrastructure so are negative for stretched servicesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The only help the Tories will be giving to anyone will be by getting booted firmly out at the next election.
They might come up with some sort of wheeze in the meantime to make some of themselves and their pals rich.
I’m led to believe that the problems we’re currently experiencing are to do with “the supply side” so I’m not sure what they can really do to help anyway.
We just offered £25k over the asking price on a property and according to the agent there were 4 other bids that were higher than hours. This has happened a few times now so property is defo still selling. What I don't get is how so many people are affording the high mortgage rates and deposits as its getting crazy now.
House prices have went up enormously in the last 7 or 8 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by DH1875
They'll be a lot of people who've seen the value of their current home increase massively in that time period meaning the profit made will offset the higher rates, as their initial down deposit will likely be pretty large.
I wouldn’t be surprised if when the interest rates increase start to bit as people come off cheaper fixed rate deals that we see a house price correction take place.
I couldn't support tax relief on mortgages. It would just drive house price inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
As soon as night follows day that’s what will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pretty sure Springfield, based in Elgin I think, are donators to the SNP. Building 3,500 houses north of Perth with more than the obligatory 25% affordable housing. Some housing association for rent as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I would rather prices were coming down via policies rather than a bust but they need to come down regardless, I'm not going to shed a tear for those losing out, houses should be for living in not an investment. It's a total shambles folk can abuse the property market for their own gain.
https://twitter.com/resi_analyst/sta...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree. I moved to my current place in 1998. I paid over the odds and stretched myself to the max having list out on five other places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatecrasher
It was tough at the time but now 25 years on I am sitting on a very nice profit on paper. Albeit I would have to sell to realise it and pay over the odds for something else.
If I was buying today I couldn’t afford my current home. The situation for those starting out is pretty grim.
Yeah I've no idea how first time buyers or young folk are supposed to afford it. We are looking the now to buy but even with an £80k deposit on a £200K property we are looking at a £700 per month mortgage. If we only had 5% deposit you'd be talking a mortgage of about £1110 per month. I'm tempted to just stay put and wait it out as we ain't even getting a great house for the £200k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
If you are getting a half decent house for £200k thats brilliant compared to Edinburgh. Edinburgh salaries are comparable to Glasgow, but our house prices are probably atleast 50% higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by DH1875
i was having a look at a mortgage calculator the other day, and i'm basically completely hooped for the foreseeable future. My choice is pay off someone else's mortgage and save minimally, or live at home (bare in mind I'm 35), and save much more - but even then, it would take me about 5 years wages, with zero outlays, to get even close to a deposit big enough for me to be able to afford somewhere close to my family south of Edinburgh, or my friends in Glasgow, and even then, the mortgage would be very close to unpayable.
IMO, there's a few things that need to happen:
Government policy needs step in to stop the upward spiral by putting a stop to property investment on a big scale.
People need to recognise that rent paid to landlords is almost 100% profit, not whatever % is above the price of the mortgage. Even when done honestly and with the best intentions, landlordism is, fundamentally, a pretty dismal business, especially modern short-term lets, which are destroying communities all over the world.
Ultimately, though, stopping the prices soaring, notwithstanding an unprecedented rise in wages for care workers like myself, simply isn't going to solve matters - prices need to plummet.
We’re moving to a new build next month and there still seems to be a steady stream of houses being sold there, also around 60 council houses being built across the road.
We’ve sold ours to a first time buyer but as others have said I’m not sure where they are getting the money from, one of the reasons we are buying a bigger house is I can’t see our teenagers moving out any time soon!
It’s not just the house prices, the stamp duty or whatever it’s called now is expensive here too, nearly £15k but would only be around £8k in England for the same house. Just another tax on our earnings that have already been taxed.
Are 95% or even 100% mortgages a thing at the moment? I feel like I see them advertised every so often but never looked into them - they might be a way to get a foot in the door for those struggling to get the deposit together.
LBTT is quite a chunky outlay too. There's some relief for first time buyers but I'm not sure there's much. A plus side to buying in the current conditions is that I've seen houses going with the builder paying the LBTT - as much as a £20k upfront saving.
For a first time buyer, LBTT can be fairly small. £200k property, you’d only pay £500.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e2affb3975.jpg
Here is the effect of the SG’s idiotic rent freeze policy. It’s an absolute disaster for tenants, especially younger ones who change tenancy frequently.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Glasgow and Edinburgh average has been driven up by increasing student accommodation costs (your right about the younger ones being hit more).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
For those not changing regularly changing accommodation, so most of the rest of the market, currently the max increase is 3% a year, unless the Landlord's got a mortgage that's jumped up when it could be up to a 6% increase.
Still an ouch tho ..
And that is the start of a two tier market. It makes the problem worse in the long run. Established older residents have cheap rent and younger newer residents have to pay more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47028342.amp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:agree: .... hence the "ouch" ..... probably worse than that to be fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Imagine someone renting long term having to move because the Landlord is moving in or selling etc, there would be a sudden hike in rent on any new tenancy.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...3f7805b550.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks like it's a £600 reduction on the LBTT amount for first time buyers. So not a huge amount, but it's also not a huge burden at the lower end of the market either, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by easty
I don't think the thresholds have been adjusted over the years, so like income tax there's a big degree of fiscal drag at play too.
Anything above £325k being hit with 10% is a big hit.