Housing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

What is your fixation with Social Bite? I have mentioned others, here's one in Perth https://www.giraffe-trading.co.uk/our-social-aims/

As well as homeless people, those with learning difficulties are given employment. In a few hours in Oxford I came across 3 similar social cafes, none were part of the social bite empire.

Regardless, they are all helping those people who are disadvantaged.

---

I have a long standing professional interest in social care (including homelessness, addictions and mental health services) and an enduring passion for addressing inequality. I'm hardly fixated on Social Bite, I thought we were having a conversation?

I can tell you anecdotally that they are not universally loved in their sector, neither is Housing First approaches to reducing homelessness.

I totally agree that social enterprise has a significant role to play in supporting people who are disadvantaged.

Heard in my Local BackWerk that Labour will be sending high profile observers to look at the German system of providing social housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Heard in my Local BackWerk that Labour will be sending high profile observers to look at the German system of providing social housing.

---

Commissions a couple of studies by McKinsey or the like, spend a few hundred million quid and by year 5 of this government we’ll have about 10 houses.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/fal...sing-emergency

This happens in Edinburgh as well. Council houses lying empty for months because the council does not have the budget to bring them up to standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quality housing can be achieved

Kevin McCloud: ‘The whole house-building market, and model, is broken’ – Article here-https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/kevin-mccloud-the-whole-housebuilding-market-and-model-is-broken-b1186346.html

The Grand Designs host has argued against a fixation on housing numbers, saying that it leads to a neglect of quality in construction. According to McCloud, the house-building market prioritizes profit for shareholders over providing affordable, quality housing. The consequence is the compromising of standards and issues such as the Grenfell tragedy.

McCloud argues that local authorities should have the power to set higher building standards than those set out in the building regulations in order to promote environmentally friendly housing solutions. He points out that quality housing can be achieved by learning from successful social housing projects, which often employ innovative technologies like passive housing and renewable energy sources. Social housing is often at the forefront of implementing new technologies that prioritize residents’ well-being: the government should look to local housing associations for examples of high-quality, sustainable housing rather than foreign models, demonstrating that quality housing can be built effectively in the UK.

It is incredible and tragic that we continue to build housing that will need to be retrofitted at great expense to meet the challenges of Net Zero, climate change, and spiralling future energy costs. It points to a massive market failure both in housebuilding and the mortgage sector, where banks and building societies are prepared to lend money for the purchase of homes and homeowners that will be highly exposed to increases in energy costs. It also points to the failure by successive governments to adequately regulate and protect home purchasers and occupiers. It is possible to build social housing to passivhaus standards, and there is no excuse for private sector housing not to be built to those same standards.

Back to the question of whether 1.5 million houses are realistic: do you think that it shouldn't be done on the numbers at all?
Well, it's irrelevant.

You have a housing market which has moved from a position in 2009 where it was trying to deliver against government targets to one today, where profits on the average new home have jumped from £6,000 per new dwelling on average to £65,000 per new dwelling on average.

And in that time, by the way, costs have remained static and land values have remained relatively static. For these developers, the focus has shifted from delivering against government targets to delivering profits to shareholders.

Persimmon to March 2022 turned over 4.4 billion pounds and made a 25 per cent profit of £1.1 billion. These are rough generalised figures, but in any other industry, 25 per cent profits would be seen as obscene.

That goes to shareholders. It's just as simple as that. That's what the focus is.

So it doesn't matter what government targets are set, it's irrelevant to that industry.

Does that industry want to deliver against government targets? Does it really want to deliver a surfeit of housing or to deliver against demand? Why would it do that?

Because that creates a basically a situation where you've supplied everything that's demanded of you. In which case, prices start to come down. No one's interested in the industry and prices coming down. They want prices to go up.

It's a simple rule of simple laws of supply and demand. If you create a restriction in the supply, prices go up because things are in short supply, people compete for them.

https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandp...-b1186346.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Quality housing can be achieved

Kevin McCloud: ‘The whole house-building market, and model, is broken’ – Article here-https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/kevin-mccloud-the-whole-housebuilding-market-and-model-is-broken-b1186346.html

The Grand Designs host has argued against a fixation on housing numbers, saying that it leads to a neglect of quality in construction. According to McCloud, the house-building market prioritizes profit for shareholders over providing affordable, quality housing. The consequence is the compromising of standards and issues such as the Grenfell tragedy.

McCloud argues that local authorities should have the power to set higher building standards than those set out in the building regulations in order to promote environmentally friendly housing solutions. He points out that quality housing can be achieved by learning from successful social housing projects, which often employ innovative technologies like passive housing and renewable energy sources. Social housing is often at the forefront of implementing new technologies that prioritize residents’ well-being: the government should look to local housing associations for examples of high-quality, sustainable housing rather than foreign models, demonstrating that quality housing can be built effectively in the UK.

It is incredible and tragic that we continue to build housing that will need to be retrofitted at great expense to meet the challenges of Net Zero, climate change, and spiralling future energy costs. It points to a massive market failure both in housebuilding and the mortgage sector, where banks and building societies are prepared to lend money for the purchase of homes and homeowners that will be highly exposed to increases in energy costs. It also points to the failure by successive governments to adequately regulate and protect home purchasers and occupiers. It is possible to build social housing to passivhaus standards, and there is no excuse for private sector housing not to be built to those same standards.

---

I’m 100% behind increasing building standards and enforcing them if it also comes with freeing up land and lifting planning restrictions.
The standard of workmanship in most new builds is horrific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’m 100% behind increasing building standards and enforcing them if it also comes with freeing up land and lifting planning restrictions.
The standard of workmanship in most new builds is horrific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Why should one be contingent on the other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Why should one be contingent on the other?

---

It’s not. I just worded it wrong. Both should happen though.
Although I would argue that the planning system has left us with only 6 big house builders in the UK so they have no need to really compete on quality. Bringing back small volume builders may help with improving standards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

It’s not. I just worded it wrong. Both should happen though.
Although I would argue that the planning system has left us with only 6 big house builders in the UK so they have no need to really compete on quality. Bringing back small volume builders may help with improving standards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Fair enough, not sure if the "cartel" issue is just down to planning but your point about standards and small volume builders is a good one. From the same article,

"I went to Sweden to look at social housing and then visited some amazing examples in the UK.

And I found this extraordinary thing, up in Lancaster, a wonderful passive house scheme of 40 new homes built by a local developer for a local housing association. And he made profit. He made about 12-15 per cent profit on the thing. He was happy. Housing Association were delighted. Residents were super delighted because they got these super low cost homes. And it was just as the heating crisis was really beginning to bite. They were living in homes with a tenth of the size of bills of people living in conventional homes".


Talking about standards, he says,

"We have a supply chain which has been deskilled over 40 years, and professionals have been effectively emasculated. They've been removed from the accountability and the verification processes within the supply chain. So engineers have been replaced through processes like design and build. Instead, you've got managers in development companies trying to value engineer schemes down in price and a supply chain which is interested in helping them and obviously just making a sale"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Persimmon to March 2022 turned over 4.4 billion pounds and made a 25 per cent profit of £1.1 billion. These are rough generalised figures, but in any other industry, 25 per cent profits would be seen as obscene.

---

I cannot understand how the Stewart Milne Group went bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

Fair enough, not sure if the "cartel" issue is just down to planning but your point about standards and small volume builders is a good one. From the same article,

"I went to Sweden to look at social housing and then visited some amazing examples in the UK.

And I found this extraordinary thing, up in Lancaster, a wonderful passive house scheme of 40 new homes built by a local developer for a local housing association. And he made profit. He made about 12-15 per cent profit on the thing. He was happy. Housing Association were delighted. Residents were super delighted because they got these super low cost homes. And it was just as the heating crisis was really beginning to bite. They were living in homes with a tenth of the size of bills of people living in conventional homes".


Talking about standards, he says,

"We have a supply chain which has been deskilled over 40 years, and professionals have been effectively emasculated. They've been removed from the accountability and the verification processes within the supply chain. So engineers have been replaced through processes like design and build. Instead, you've got managers in development companies trying to value engineer schemes down in price and a supply chain which is interested in helping them and obviously just making a sale"

---

The small builders who only build between 1 and 5 houses a year just can’t afford the costs involved in planning applications. It means lots of small sites just go undeveloped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/dev...-council-homes


Oops!!

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...0f90a34686.jpg
Only 100 objections in a city the size of Glasgow should be automatic approval.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/pla...given-go-ahead

Another 700 flats for rent in Glasgow.

Looks like scot gov going with rent controls again. Hope it works although I've yet to see anywhere in the world where it's done anything but create huge rises

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...eng8qnn7ro.amp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Looks like scot gov going with rent controls again. Hope it works although I've yet to see anywhere in the world where it's done anything but create huge rises

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...eng8qnn7ro.amp

---

It’s so dumb when all the evidence is there for them. [emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"After receiving a shocking 36% rent increase notice for his flat, Robert decided to take action. He followed the Rent Adjudicator process, a procedure designed to help tenants contest unreasonable rent hikes when landlords are unwilling to negotiate.
,
Acting within the required 21-day window, he was successful: the increase was capped at 12%. But the story doesn’t end there. His landlady is now challenging this decision in a First-Tier Tribunal, aiming to reinstate her original 36% increase. Robert has turned to Living Rent Member Defence, seeking reassurance and support from our members during this challenging time.
,
Landlords have the ability to raise rent above the current 12% cap, placing the responsibility on tenants to file a complaint with the Rent Officer within 21 days if they want to challenge the increase. If tenants aren't aware of this option or miss the deadline, they’re forced to pay the steep rent hikes set by landlords. This situation makes it clear that landlords cannot be relied upon to act fairly without government oversight.
,
,Rent controls are urgently needed to prevent unlawful rent hikes and to hold landlords accountable with penalties for any attempts to impose them
Together, we are stronger, standing united for fair rents for all tenants"
,
https://www.livingrent.org/join

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

"After receiving a shocking 36% rent increase notice for his flat, Robert decided to take action. He followed the Rent Adjudicator process, a procedure designed to help tenants contest unreasonable rent hikes when landlords are unwilling to negotiate.
,
Acting within the required 21-day window, he was successful: the increase was capped at 12%. But the story doesn’t end there. His landlady is now challenging this decision in a First-Tier Tribunal, aiming to reinstate her original 36% increase. Robert has turned to Living Rent Member Defence, seeking reassurance and support from our members during this challenging time.
,
Landlords have the ability to raise rent above the current 12% cap, placing the responsibility on tenants to file a complaint with the Rent Officer within 21 days if they want to challenge the increase. If tenants aren't aware of this option or miss the deadline, they’re forced to pay the steep rent hikes set by landlords. This situation makes it clear that landlords cannot be relied upon to act fairly without government oversight.
,
,Rent controls are urgently needed to prevent unlawful rent hikes and to hold landlords accountable with penalties for any attempts to impose them
Together, we are stronger, standing united for fair rents for all tenants"
,
https://www.livingrent.org/join

---

Either way, the rent will make its way back to a market clearing price. How many years at 12% will it take?
We are creating a deliberate shortage of housing by refusing to build more and then blaming landlords for price rises. If you want lower rent or lower house prices you need to build more houses. Edinburgh is creating households quicker than we are building.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Endorse our response: tourist tax to build more council flats
https://www.livingrent.org/endorse_t...-council-flats


Edinburgh City Council is implementing a "visitor levy", or tourist tax, which has the ability to generate up to £50 million a year.

The unchecked growth of tourism over the past decades has exacerbated the housing crisis in Edinburgh. Developers and landlords have taken full advantage of tourism to hollow-out our homes and communities in the name of soaring profits.

As a result, members in Edinburgh organised together to push for the council to commit money raised from the tourist tax to be spent on council housing. And we won.

The council has to committed to £5 million a year from the visitor levy to borrow a further £150m to build new council and affordable homes.

But we think this does not go far enough.

There are 5,123 families in temporary accommodation and 23,000 people waiting for a permanent council house. New rents in the private sector in the city have increased by 18.4% over the last year, and over 80% over the last decade.

It is us who work in tourism, hospitality, administration and cleansing who work hard to generate profit for the visitor sector, but rarely does it end up in our pockets. Edinburgh is our home and we deserve affordable homes and well funded public services.

Right now, Edinburgh City Council is consulting on the policy to get peoples views on how this money should be spent. We have written a response to this consultation and we need Edinburgh residents to sign our petition to back our call for a tourist tax for council flats before the consultation closes on December 15th.

In order to make our responses as strong as possible we need people to tell us why you think the tourist tax should be spent on social housing. Text or email your reason to Sinead on 07593128079 or [email protected].

You can also submit an organisational or individual response on the council website by using our template here

By signing our petition you are agreeing for us to submit a response on your behalf to Edinburgh City Council's "Vistory Levy" consultation.

Endorse our response!

Increase the nightly tax from 5% to 8%, similar to Amsterdam and Porto.
Significantly increase the spending on housing.
Commit to majority of builds being social housing not mid-market rents.
Commit to money being spent on other essential public infrastructure, for example permanent public toilets and cleansing.


EndorseTouristTax2024

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8dlrlkxmyo

Another example of why the private market rentals need regulation and rent controls. 34% increase due to change in tenancy to single person occupancy.

Allan’s old flat, which is near the city centre, is now being advertised at £1,060 per month.

He added: "You can only really feel at home somewhere if you can afford to live there."

Evicted, Tenants on the Edge follows the stories of four young renters who face being priced out or pushed out of their homes as the law in Scotland changes, rents rise and evictions grow.

You can watch the programme on the iPlayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8dlrlkxmyo

Another example of why the private market rentals need regulation and rent controls. 34% increase due to change in tenancy to single person occupancy.

Allan’s old flat, which is near the city centre, is now being advertised at £1,060 per month.

He added: "You can only really feel at home somewhere if you can afford to live there."

Evicted, Tenants on the Edge follows the stories of four young renters who face being priced out or pushed out of their homes as the law in Scotland changes, rents rise and evictions grow.

You can watch the programme on the iPlayer.

---

Millions of more houses would clip the landlords wings, we have the least spare homes in the oecd so landlords can call the shots.

I like the idea of rent controls but I've yet to see any city where prices haven't spiralled upwards and then slowed when they ended. I'd genuinely like to see a city where it worked and I'd love for it to work here, I'd be all for it.

The easiest and obvious way every normal nation knows to ease prices is building houses, the UK isn't normal though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7

Millions of more houses would clip the landlords wings, we have the least spare homes in the oecd so landlords can call the shots.

I like the idea of rent controls but I've yet to see any city where prices haven't spiralled upwards and then slowed when they ended. I'd genuinely like to see a city where it worked and I'd love for it to work here, I'd be all for it.

The easiest and obvious way every normal nation knows to ease prices is building houses, the UK isn't normal though

---

People need protected from extortion, it's as simple as that. We need social housing but our government isn't going to deliver them. Until then community action and pressure on government, via the likes of Living Rent.

Housing is a human right and so is being part of your community. People on average wages are being squeezed out and it's shameful.

Would zoning where Airbnb is permitted not help increase supply? It might cause less distortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tubs

Would zoning where Airbnb is permitted not help increase supply? It might cause less distortion.

---

There's a lot of new rules for AirBNB which should see them not being as good an option now.

https://bsky.app/profile/annaclarke..../3lcfeb5v4ac24

Good thread on the stupidity behind Scotlands new rent controls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://bsky.app/profile/annaclarke..../3lcfeb5v4ac24

Good thread on the stupidity behind Scotlands new rent controls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Where does it discuss the "stupidity" of rent moderation measures? The quoted article presents different views, from interest groups across the sector. The statement from Anna Clarke merely says

"So it seems the Scottish Government is pushing ahead with rent controls.
With increases allowed up to CPI+1% (capped at 6%) the first thing they'll achieve will be steady increases in rents - as landlords see the annual increase as a "use it or loose it" opportunity. But it won't end there....🧵"

That's hardly an insightful deconstruction of the measures just voted on.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news...rliament-89606

For anyone interested, here's the main thrust of the article Anna Clarke quoted in her post.

"Paul McLennan, the Scottish housing minister, said: “The Housing (Scotland) Bill will play an important role in helping to tackle poverty by keeping rents affordable and ensuring people can stay in their homes.

“Ensuring everyone has the right to a safe and stable home is essential to the Scottish government’s priority of ending child poverty, and the bill will play a role in reaching that goal.

“Scotland has led the way in protecting tenants and providing rights for homeless people. The Housing (Scotland) Bill aims to create a rental system that improves the rights of tenants while maintaining investment, and provides greater support for people threatened with homelessness.

“I am pleased parliament has supported the general principles of the legislation, especially on our proposals for a system of rent controls that keep costs lower for tenants.”

Living Rent, Scotland’s tenants’ union, said: “We need to celebrate the vote bringing rent controls one step closer. But landlords are fighting hard and it’s clear there is a lot of work to be done.”

David Melhuish, director of the Scottish Property Federation, which represents developers, said: “We believe the proposals for consulting on the bill’s framework powers for exemptions from the rent control regulations must be addressed to encourage and facilitate new housing investment for Scotland, given that at least £500m of investment could already have been lost as the policy of rent controls has been formed.

“Of particular concern remains the application of rent controls on empty properties in between tenancies. This part of the bill must be reconsidered if we are to restore investor confidence and begin to address the housing shortfall.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news...rliament-89606

For anyone interested, here's the main thrust of the article Anna Clarke quoted in her post.

"Paul McLennan, the Scottish housing minister, said: “The Housing (Scotland) Bill will play an important role in helping to tackle poverty by keeping rents affordable and ensuring people can stay in their homes.

“Ensuring everyone has the right to a safe and stable home is essential to the Scottish government’s priority of ending child poverty, and the bill will play a role in reaching that goal.

“Scotland has led the way in protecting tenants and providing rights for homeless people. The Housing (Scotland) Bill aims to create a rental system that improves the rights of tenants while maintaining investment, and provides greater support for people threatened with homelessness.

“I am pleased parliament has supported the general principles of the legislation, especially on our proposals for a system of rent controls that keep costs lower for tenants.”

Living Rent, Scotland’s tenants’ union, said: “We need to celebrate the vote bringing rent controls one step closer. But landlords are fighting hard and it’s clear there is a lot of work to be done.”

David Melhuish, director of the Scottish Property Federation, which represents developers, said: “We believe the proposals for consulting on the bill’s framework powers for exemptions from the rent control regulations must be addressed to encourage and facilitate new housing investment for Scotland, given that at least £500m of investment could already have been lost as the policy of rent controls has been formed.

“Of particular concern remains the application of rent controls on empty properties in between tenancies. This part of the bill must be reconsidered if we are to restore investor confidence and begin to address the housing shortfall.”

---

Price controls inevitably lead to shortages. This is a sure fire way to kill investment in property in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Price controls inevitably lead to shortages. This is a sure fire way to kill investment in property in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

You just ignore any attempt at debate or discussion and resort to bland, untrue, blanket statements. At least post something that has some substance behind it.

And no, studies from Buenos Aires, Melbourne or wherever do not apply to Scotland. Neither do the utterances of right wing think tanks or far right minded individuals deeply immersed in their own neo-liberal agendas.