Housing

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Planning rules are different in England. Down there you don’t need permission to turn retail into housing. Think it’s called permitted development. We don’t have it in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have permitted development in Scotland. I can't believe change of use is permitted development in England.

[Stairway 2 7]

I read an article that said the biggest problem with changing all our empty retail and office space into homes is natural light. They have large areas inside generally, that is OK for an office floor but people like windows in homes.

Did say it was a fine for smaller offices and retail. The price didn't make sense also for larger units. You also have problems with ventilation, needing individual heating control for each unit, complete change in plumbing set up and ceiling heights. Usually cheaper to knock down

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We have permitted development in Scotland. I can't believe change of use is permitted development in England.

That’s because, largely, it’s not.

Devil in the detail of course but changing a large retail / office block to domestic abodes would need planning permission.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That’s because, largely, it’s not.

Devil in the detail of course but changing a large retail / office block to domestic abodes would need planning permission.

I’m sure that it has a prior approval clause though. Don’t know the exact details but it is def easier to do in England.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m sure that it has a prior approval clause though. Don’t know the exact details but it is def easier to do in England.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah fair enough, wouldn’t surprise me if the rules n regs were even more complex in Scotland.

Glad I don’t have to navigate them as part of my day job that’s for sure!

[wookie70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

On CPOs, I read about an individual in Hastings who renovated an empty office block into flats with their own money and has since been given £1.5 million from the council to do more.

I know of three large department stores in the centre of Perth that have lain empty for a number of years crying out for something similar. Bound to be the same in most cities.

I see liitle point in Government promises where developers are the decision makes. I'd love to see Labour build millions of council houses on sites like you mention, remove any planning permission from development that have broken ground and sat on it for years and combine it with some form of apprenticeship and training where those building the houses could be given preferential treatment in those particular houses. It would be separate from normal social housing but hopefully slash demand in renting and build up housing stocks.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I see liitle point in Government promises where developers are the decision makes. I'd love to see Labour build millions of council houses on sites like you mention, remove any planning permission from development that have broken ground and sat on it for years and combine it with some form of apprenticeship and training where those building the houses could be given preferential treatment in those particular houses. It would be separate from normal social housing but hopefully slash demand in renting and build up housing stocks.

There are lots of things govt can do to increase housebuilding, both private and public. There is not much evidence of them being interested.
They just announce targets and wait until they are missed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy Bee]

Loosely linked to housing but I thought it was quite interesting. Halifax have brought out an 18 month fixed mortgage. Decent rate considering at 4.37% but 60% ltv needed so a 40% deposit. £1499 fees though. I think it shows mortgage companies fear a recession and the interest cuts that go along with it.

[danhibees1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Loosely linked to housing but I thought it was quite interesting. Halifax have brought out an 18 month fixed mortgage. Decent rate considering at 4.37% but 60% ltv needed so a 40% deposit. £1499 fees though. I think it shows mortgage companies fear a recession and the interest cuts that go along with it.

That seems like a lot to pay for such a short term - be reapplying for mortgages in a year and having to do it all again!

I'm struggling to understand the logic in your conclusion. Surely if they expected interst rates to drop they'd not be wanting people on short deals and the better rates would be on the longer term products?

[Andy Bee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That seems like a lot to pay for such a short term - be reapplying for mortgages in a year and having to do it all again!

I'm struggling to understand the logic in your conclusion. Surely if they expected interst rates to drop they'd not be wanting people on short deals and the better rates would be on the longer term products?

I don't think many are taking fixed rates at the moment DH, consensus is tracker is the way to go so the shorter term may bring them in on fixed. If Halifax sense that mortgage rates are going to fall and Bailey has came out and more or less stated they'll be cut four times next year then Halifax will at least lock people in on above 4% for a short time.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Loosely linked to housing but I thought it was quite interesting. Halifax have brought out an 18 month fixed mortgage. Decent rate considering at 4.37% but 60% ltv needed so a 40% deposit. £1499 fees though. I think it shows mortgage companies fear a recession and the interest cuts that go along with it.

Mortgage companies don’t fear interest rate cuts particularly. They match their liabilities as and when, locking in their margin as they go.

Sure if rates go back to where they were nailed to the floor (unlikely) then their margin will have to shrink but this product is nothing more than them seeing a niche that they think they can fill.

With such a hefty fee they are more likely to be hoping just to fool a few into thinking it’s a good deal than anything more insightful.

[Andy Bee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Mortgage companies don’t fear interest rate cuts particularly. They match their liabilities as and when, locking in their margin as they go.

Sure if rates go back to where they were nailed to the floor (unlikely) then their margin will have to shrink but this product is nothing more than them seeing a niche that they think they can fill.

With such a hefty fee they are more likely to be hoping just to fool a few into thinking it’s a good deal than anything more insightful.

If there's 4 cuts next year that'll take rates well below 4% and closer to 3%, I think it's Nationwide hinting it could go as low as 2.75% with others going as high as 3.75 by year end, all assuming inflation comes down. I agree they're just trying to hoover up anyone they can on a fixed rate over 4%.

[Moulin Yarns]

Just catching up after a weekend in the capital.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/...mes-in-england


I'm SO glad Scotland has tighter planning control.

I think that there's a place for change of use but not at the cost of living standards.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just catching up after a weekend in the capital.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/...mes-in-england


I'm SO glad Scotland has tighter planning control.

I think that there's a place for change of use but not at the cost of living standards.

It should be two different things. Planning permission and building control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It should be two different things. Planning permission and building control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are. At least, in Scotland, 6 years ago when I retired from local government.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ky&CMP=bsky_gu

Rent caps stopping housing associations building more houses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ky&CMP=bsky_gu

Rent caps stopping housing associations building more houses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The article is fair and accurate except the bit about grant funding to buy developer-led affordable which is not true.

Don’t know where you got the rent caps bit, though?

Its to do with available capital and other prioritised call on financial and staff resources.

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We have permitted development in Scotland. I can't believe change of use is permitted development in England.

Its primarily office into housing in England.

It was a Tory policy and has been successful in someways in freeing up office blocks in the suburbs for conversion when councils were blocking them based on outdated and fanciful employment land policies (although developers could have been smarter by assessing job density levels and including a small amount of office space).

Anyway, the big problem with the policy is that they don’t need to comply with space standards and a whole bunch of other regs so, at the bottom of the scale, they have produced a load of slum housing - some of it regrettably now in London being used for temporary housing for the most vulnerable like single mothers.

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The article is fair and accurate except the bit about grant funding to buy developer-led affordable which is not true.

Don’t know where you got the rent caps bit, though?

Its to do with available capital and other prioritised call on financial and staff resources.

Was here:
Housing associations’ finances have also been squeezed by sub-inflation caps on the amount they can charge tenants.

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Was here:
Housing associations’ finances have also been squeezed by sub-inflation caps on the amount they can charge tenants.

This could be referring to a couple of things.
George Osborne enforced rent reductions on Housing Associations which hit them hard. However, the Labour government has agreed a rent increase formula linked to inflation for the next 10 years to give them predictability. So maybe not that.
I think that is more likely referring to the Local Housing Allowance (LHA).
This is not a cap on Housing Association rents per se but can act as one.
The amount of rent that an HA can charge depends on what type of affordable housing it is.
Back in the early 90s, another great Tory wheeze was to allow rents of 80% of market value to be charged!! This seems to have sunk into the public psyche but in really, any housing association will assume that the maximum amount they will get will be the amount Housing Benefit will pay because many of their tenants are unemployed and many may become unemployed.
The amount of Housing Benefit a person can claim is limited by the LHA which the government has consistently restricted to save them money.
So the LHA acts like a de facto cap due to the HAs sensible, self-imposed prudence – which is the right thing for them to do.
Forms of affordable housing like social/target rents or London Affordable Rent are pretty close to LHA in any case. Councils and government agencies look for Social Rent affordable housing to be delivered now with its specific rent setting formula but there’s not much in it, really.
The other factor that has hit values is the HAs cost of capital which increased (as did everyone’s) after Dim Lizzie’s wacky budget.
Interest rates are coming down but I would guess the market’s perception of HA risk (the fire safety and maintenance improvement mentioned being a priority) is keeping borrowing restricted and rates high. Also, HAs being Industrial and Provident Societies mostly (charities) will need to manage their finances prudently. (the private for-profit associations do not seem to have the same problems raising funds!!!).
I can’t see the government getting anywhere close to increasing housebuilding unless it re-capitalises the HA sector.
The Councils are helping by ramping up direct delivery where they have HRA headroom but their resources (funding and personnel) were filleted by 14 years of Tory government. They can only do so much.
My guess is that the government will step in to underwrite/guarantee housing association borrowing to energise the sector again.

We’ll see.

Shared Ownership values have dropped dramatically - by around 15% - as well due to Tory wheezes but that’s another story.

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This could be referring to a couple of things.
George Osborne enforced rent reductions on Housing Associations which hit them hard. However, the Labour government has agreed a rent increase formula linked to inflation for the next 10 years to give them predictability. So maybe not that.
I think that is more likely referring to the Local Housing Allowance (LHA).
This is not a cap on Housing Association rents per se but can act as one.
The amount of rent that an HA can charge depends on what type of affordable housing it is.
Back in the early 90s, another great Tory wheeze was to allow rents of 80% of market value to be charged!! This seems to have sunk into the public psyche but in really, any housing association will assume that the maximum amount they will get will be the amount Housing Benefit will pay because many of their tenants are unemployed and many may become unemployed.
The amount of Housing Benefit a person can claim is limited by the LHA which the government has consistently restricted to save them money.
So the LHA acts like a de facto cap due to the HAs sensible, self-imposed prudence – which is the right thing for them to do.
Forms of affordable housing like social/target rents or London Affordable Rent are pretty close to LHA in any case. Councils and government agencies look for Social Rent affordable housing to be delivered now with its specific rent setting formula but there’s not much in it, really.
The other factor that has hit values is the HAs cost of capital which increased (as did everyone’s) after Dim Lizzie’s wacky budget.
Interest rates are coming down but I would guess the market’s perception of HA risk (the fire safety and maintenance improvement mentioned being a priority) is keeping borrowing restricted and rates high. Also, HAs being Industrial and Provident Societies mostly (charities) will need to manage their finances prudently. (the private for-profit associations do not seem to have the same problems raising funds!!!).
I can’t see the government getting anywhere close to increasing housebuilding unless it re-capitalises the HA sector.
The Councils are helping by ramping up direct delivery where they have HRA headroom but their resources (funding and personnel) were filleted by 14 years of Tory government. They can only do so much.
My guess is that the government will step in to underwrite/guarantee housing association borrowing to energise the sector again.

We’ll see.

Shared Ownership values have dropped dramatically - by around 15% - as well due to Tory wheezes but that’s another story.

I suppose Mr Ozy's retort would be that any mechanism which keeps rents artificially low is A Bad Thing.

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I suppose Mr Ozy's retort would be that any mechanism which keeps rents artificially low is A Bad Thing.

Not if his government is paying the HB bill.

The Tories were hopeless on housing. Always thinking short-term and governing by Daily Mail headlines.

What a mess.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not if his government is paying the HB bill.

The Tories were hopeless on housing. Always thinking short-term and governing by Daily Mail headlines.

What a mess.

Agree with you both.
The principle of capping prices cuts investment. It’s been proven more often than most things in economics. It always leads to shortages.
I also support cutting housing benefits. That’s actually just a straight out subsidy for landlords and pushes rents up. There is no benefit for the tenant at all.
Both those things are distorting the market and not in a good way that helps tenants.
Instead of spending billions on housing benefit, spend it on building houses. We’ll all be better off in the long run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colr]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Agree with you both.
The principle of capping prices cuts investment. It’s been proven more often than most things in economics. It always leads to shortages.
I also support cutting housing benefits. That’s actually just a straight out subsidy for landlords and pushes rents up. There is no benefit for the tenant at all.
Both those things are distorting the market and not in a good way that helps tenants.
Instead of spending billions on housing benefit, spend it on building houses. We’ll all be better off in the long run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Worked in Vienna where the availability of good quality public housing hold private rents and prices down.

It was Thatcher who decided the public housing in the UK should be for the poorest only (housing of last resort, I think she called it) turning some estates into ghettos in the process.

I go more with Nye Bevan’s vision of mixed communities - one which John Prescott also pushed when he was DPM taking a role in regeneration.

It’s incredible how the amount of damage Thatcher’s politics have done to this country (rail and power for example)

[Andy Bee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Worked in Vienna where the availability of good quality public housing hold private rents and prices down.

It was Thatcher who decided the public housing in the UK should be for the poorest only (housing of last resort, I think she called it) turning some estates into ghettos in the process.

I go more with Nye Bevan’s vision of mixed communities - one which John Prescott also pushed when he was DPM taking a role in regeneration.

It’s incredible how the amount of damage Thatcher’s politics have done to this country (rail and power for example)

It's actually crazy to think the amount of social housing that has been lost. In my own area and many many more it was the norm to rent a council house, probably over 90% of people rented, it was a mix of council and Scottish Special where I am. When you think that places like Livingston were predominantly rented housing younger people don't seem to realise the actual levels of social housing that existed. Thatchers mistake wasn't selling the houses, it was not replacing them like for like. I remember council yards in every town and them employing vast swathes of school leavers on good apprenticeships, most of them now enjoying a very good pension although that has taken a hit over the years.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's actually crazy to think the amount of social housing that has been lost. In my own area and many many more it was the norm to rent a council house, probably over 90% of people rented, it was a mix of council and Scottish Special where I am. When you think that places like Livingston were predominantly rented housing younger people don't seem to realise the actual levels of social housing that existed. Thatchers mistake wasn't selling the houses, it was not replacing them like for like. I remember council yards in every town and them employing vast swathes of school leavers on good apprenticeships, most of them now enjoying a very good pension although that has taken a hit over the years.

Agree and the discounts were too generous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Worked in Vienna where the availability of good quality public housing hold private rents and prices down.

It was Thatcher who decided the public housing in the UK should be for the poorest only (housing of last resort, I think she called it) turning some estates into ghettos in the process.

I go more with Nye Bevan’s vision of mixed communities - one which John Prescott also pushed when he was DPM taking a role in regeneration.

It’s incredible how the amount of damage Thatcher’s politics have done to this country (rail and power for example)

Forgive me for being short on the details here…

Whilst I’m no fan of Thatcher, was the concept of having more people being able to own their own home not a reasonable and honourable one… but the problem with this policy came much later (maybe even under Blair?) when an adjustment to the legalities regarding lending criteria meant that it was easier for people to then own multiple properties… and our drift from the government being the slum landlord of millions to private individuals being the slum landlord to millions accelerated and not really in the way that Thatcher had initially intended?

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Forgive me for being short on the details here…

Whilst I’m no fan of Thatcher, was the concept of having more people being able to own their own home not a reasonable and honourable one… but the problem with this policy came much later (maybe even under Blair?) when an adjustment to the legalities regarding lending criteria meant that it was easier for people to then own multiple properties… and our drift from the government being the slum landlord of millions to private individuals being the slum landlord to millions accelerated and not really in the way that Thatcher had initially intended?

No it was a horrific idea for Thatcher to sell of the council homes for a pittance without replacing them. A total wealth redistribution to boomers at the expense of every generation after. Every prime minister after just followed along. Thankfully SNP ended it here or there would be no social housing left. Great for one generation crippling for future ones.

[superfurryhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Forgive me for being short on the details here…

Whilst I’m no fan of Thatcher, was the concept of having more people being able to own their own home not a reasonable and honourable one… but the problem with this policy came much later (maybe even under Blair?) when an adjustment to the legalities regarding lending criteria meant that it was easier for people to then own multiple properties… and our drift from the government being the slum landlord of millions to private individuals being the slum landlord to millions accelerated and not really in the way that Thatcher had initially intended?

Nothing she did was reasonable or honourable. People had homes for life, at a low rent. They were maintained and there was a large social housing stock. If the Tories had embarked upon an extensive programme of new social housing, then maybe there was some benefit to society. As it was, they just ensured a housing crisis for future generations.

Worth mentioning that the government didn't own council houses, the local authority did. Also worth keeping in mind that social housing wasn't just schemes, it was across all areas (Housing Associations, like the Port of Leith did a lot to improve living conditions for people).

Younger contributors should also keep in mind that the disparity between wages and house prices in Edinburgh didn't really start to get too acute until the ultra commoditisation of property, from the aspirational 80's onwards. The sale of the social housing stock was part of the immoral social engineering that began then and has never stopped.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Forgive me for being short on the details here…

Whilst I’m no fan of Thatcher, was the concept of having more people being able to own their own home not a reasonable and honourable one… but the problem with this policy came much later (maybe even under Blair?) when an adjustment to the legalities regarding lending criteria meant that it was easier for people to then own multiple properties… and our drift from the government being the slum landlord of millions to private individuals being the slum landlord to millions accelerated and not really in the way that Thatcher had initially intended?

Anytime there are horror stories about slum landlords on TV the landlord tends to be in the public sector.
Private landlords tend to look after their properties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk