Affordable Homes?
Discussion
Just watched an item on BBC local news (London).
Plans to demolish some old buildings. The reporter said 'new flats will be built, none of them affordable'.
Eh? What he means is: 'none of them cheap' or 'none of them affordable for people on low incomes'. Why can't he say that?
All homes are affordable, just not by everyone. The mansions in Kings Avenue Hampstead are affordable, if they weren't they'd all be empty.
I don't usually jump on anti-PC bandwagons, but this one really bugs me. It's the wrong word.
Plans to demolish some old buildings. The reporter said 'new flats will be built, none of them affordable'.
Eh? What he means is: 'none of them cheap' or 'none of them affordable for people on low incomes'. Why can't he say that?
All homes are affordable, just not by everyone. The mansions in Kings Avenue Hampstead are affordable, if they weren't they'd all be empty.
I don't usually jump on anti-PC bandwagons, but this one really bugs me. It's the wrong word.
Not the Journo's fault, the Government defines affordable housing as being available through a housing association, or other similar scheme, involving either shared ownership, or a mortgage help scheme.
Essentially every time there's a housing development, the planning regulations say that a certain number of "affordable" houses have to be built. However that housing doesn't need to be on the same scheme as the posh stuff, so often developers will do a few posh schemes, and then do one naff one which is all "affordable".
Essentially every time there's a housing development, the planning regulations say that a certain number of "affordable" houses have to be built. However that housing doesn't need to be on the same scheme as the posh stuff, so often developers will do a few posh schemes, and then do one naff one which is all "affordable".
davepoth said:
Not the Journo's fault, the Government defines affordable housing as being available through a housing association, or other similar scheme, involving either shared ownership, or a mortgage help scheme.
Essentially every time there's a housing development, the planning regulations say that a certain number of "affordable" houses have to be built. However that housing doesn't need to be on the same scheme as the posh stuff, so often developers will do a few posh schemes, and then do one naff one which is all "affordable".
Yeah, I know. I just don't see why they can't say 'cheap' or 'low cost'. Maybe my dictionary is out of date.Essentially every time there's a housing development, the planning regulations say that a certain number of "affordable" houses have to be built. However that housing doesn't need to be on the same scheme as the posh stuff, so often developers will do a few posh schemes, and then do one naff one which is all "affordable".
forsure said:
davepoth said:
Not the Journo's fault, the Government defines affordable housing as being available through a housing association, or other similar scheme, involving either shared ownership, or a mortgage help scheme.
Essentially every time there's a housing development, the planning regulations say that a certain number of "affordable" houses have to be built. However that housing doesn't need to be on the same scheme as the posh stuff, so often developers will do a few posh schemes, and then do one naff one which is all "affordable".
Yeah, I know. I just don't see why they can't say 'cheap' or 'low cost'. Maybe my dictionary is out of date.Essentially every time there's a housing development, the planning regulations say that a certain number of "affordable" houses have to be built. However that housing doesn't need to be on the same scheme as the posh stuff, so often developers will do a few posh schemes, and then do one naff one which is all "affordable".
Affordable Housing is a defined term in housing and planning law and includes various tenure models intended to be accessed by people who for whatever reason cannot access regular market housing, whether rented or bought. Local planning authorities will have policies in place that require developers to either provide a specific percentage of their new builds (typically 30% or more) as actual units to be managed by a Registered Provider (ie a housing association in most cases), or to pay a financial contribution intended to enable off-site provision if there are some exceptional circumstances that mean on site affordable units cannot be included (flats can be a good example of where this is necessary if considerable service charges are likely to relate that may take the cost to the consumer outside affordable bounds). If these policy requirements are not met then planning permission is/should be refused...
ShadownINja said:
What I wanna know is this. What happens when we have 120 million people in the UK and 90 million of them can't afford their own house? Do we get rid of any greenery and turn England into one giant estate?
Who owns all the houses then? Surely the market would level out if there was such a huge stock of unsold properties hanging around.
That said, I have no problem with affordable rental housing being provided in expensive cities. But not for the unemployed. For essential service workers. Your nurses, police, ambos etc etc
Colonial said:
Who owns all the houses then?
Surely the market would level out if there was such a huge stock of unsold properties hanging around.
That said, I have no problem with affordable rental housing being provided in expensive cities. But not for the unemployed. For essential service workers. Your nurses, police, ambos etc etc
The freehold is generally vested in the Registered Provider who acts as a landlord. Out of their interest can be (typically) sold shared ownership leasehold interests for those who aspire to own (rent being paid for the non-owned share), or affordable wholly rented arrangements for those who do not. There is no reason why people in the latter category cannot access housing and council tax benefit if their circumstances render them eligible (happily the law does not contemplate people living in a cardboard box in the street even if some of the PH massive might like that).Surely the market would level out if there was such a huge stock of unsold properties hanging around.
That said, I have no problem with affordable rental housing being provided in expensive cities. But not for the unemployed. For essential service workers. Your nurses, police, ambos etc etc
There is a transitional model called Rent to Homebuy which is intended to facilitate people making the move from rented to (shared) ownership.
Biggest problem is that although the logic sounds simple and quite elegant, property law does not sit at all easily with shared ownerships and the like with the result that the sale contracts and leases etc are necessarily and horribly complicated, and often very restrictive. Shared ownerships are difficult to mortgage currently and existing shared owners can find it difficult to sell up as/when they desire to move up the market.
There are similar schemes for so-called Key Workers (ie police, teachers etc), but these are not actually Affordable Housing in the strict sense although similar considerations clearly apply albeit most of these people earn considerably more than many in need of social housing (if still not a realistic living wage in many parts of the country).
The term irritates me as well. It seems to miss understand the concept of supply and demand and imply that if you build houses shoddy, cheap and cramped enough people won't pay a premium for them on the open market. Which is of course exactly what it's meant to do. That way developers can build 100 s
t houses in a nice area, rent 5 of them to the local authority for a few years and sell the rest at a premium and bribe the council with the proceeds.
t houses in a nice area, rent 5 of them to the local authority for a few years and sell the rest at a premium and bribe the council with the proceeds. AJS- said:
The term irritates me as well. It seems to miss understand the concept of supply and demand and imply that if you build houses shoddy, cheap and cramped enough people won't pay a premium for them on the open market. Which is of course exactly what it's meant to do. That way developers can build 100 st houses in a nice area, rent 5 of them to the local authority for a few years and sell the rest at a premium and bribe the council with the proceeds.
Suggest you have a look at the Homes and Communities Agency Scheme Development Standards then; you will find they exceed most spec build standards on all sorts of areas that might be a bit more important than gold taps and a Smeg oven. Necessarily, amenity space can suffer but current density targets that apply accross the board mean that decent gardens are a thing of the past for most bulk ne builds...t houses in a nice area, rent 5 of them to the local authority for a few years and sell the rest at a premium and bribe the council with the proceeds. Pupp said:
AJS- said:
The term irritates me as well. It seems to miss understand the concept of supply and demand and imply that if you build houses shoddy, cheap and cramped enough people won't pay a premium for them on the open market. Which is of course exactly what it's meant to do. That way developers can build 100 st houses in a nice area, rent 5 of them to the local authority for a few years and sell the rest at a premium and bribe the council with the proceeds.
Suggest you have a look at the Homes and Communities Agency Scheme Development Standards then; you will find they exceed most spec build standards on all sorts of areas that might be a bit more important than gold taps and a Smeg oven. Necessarily, amenity space can suffer but current density targets that apply accross the board mean that decent gardens are a thing of the past for most bulk ne builds...t houses in a nice area, rent 5 of them to the local authority for a few years and sell the rest at a premium and bribe the council with the proceeds. Most of the ones I've been in have cardboard walls.
I'm not knocking them, there's a place for houses like that. I just think it's a very typical case of a government policy having unintended consequences.
Colonial said:
ShadownINja said:
What I wanna know is this. What happens when we have 120 million people in the UK and 90 million of them can't afford their own house? Do we get rid of any greenery and turn England into one giant estate?
Who owns all the houses then? Surely the market would level out if there was such a huge stock of unsold properties hanging around.
That said, I have no problem with affordable rental housing being provided in expensive cities. But not for the unemployed. For essential service workers. Your nurses, police, ambos etc etc
Pupp said:
AJS- said:
The term irritates me as well. It seems to miss understand the concept of supply and demand and imply that if you build houses shoddy, cheap and cramped enough people won't pay a premium for them on the open market. Which is of course exactly what it's meant to do. That way developers can build 100 st houses in a nice area, rent 5 of them to the local authority for a few years and sell the rest at a premium and bribe the council with the proceeds.
Suggest you have a look at the Homes and Communities Agency Scheme Development Standards then; you will find they exceed most spec build standards on all sorts of areas that might be a bit more important than gold taps and a Smeg oven. Necessarily, amenity space can suffer but current density targets that apply accross the board mean that decent gardens are a thing of the past for most bulk ne builds...t houses in a nice area, rent 5 of them to the local authority for a few years and sell the rest at a premium and bribe the council with the proceeds. 
) of a large Barrat estate. There was a lot of fuss and nimbyism about some of the later, smaller properties being in some way 'assisted' but, IMHO they in no way detracted from the development or the area. Although to be fair we moved a long time back...I think the shared ownership schemes theoretically have a lot of merit. In effect, they allow lower income households to get a foot onto the property ladder which has distinct advantages; they are effectively 'saving' in bricks and mortar; ownership (even in part) inculcates a greater respect for the proerty and neighbourhood; the stakeholding allows the housholder some degree of hedge against price rises; the part ownership enables more realistic income to mortgage cover.
It's a shame property laws and mortgages could not adopt a 'standardised' - thereby cheaper and less unweildy - method of conveyance for such deals.
Mortgage interest releif for FTBs and low income workers would also help of course.
Digga said:
Pupp said:
AJS- said:
The term irritates me as well. It seems to miss understand the concept of supply and demand and imply that if you build houses shoddy, cheap and cramped enough people won't pay a premium for them on the open market. Which is of course exactly what it's meant to do. That way developers can build 100 st houses in a nice area, rent 5 of them to the local authority for a few years and sell the rest at a premium and bribe the council with the proceeds.
Suggest you have a look at the Homes and Communities Agency Scheme Development Standards then; you will find they exceed most spec build standards on all sorts of areas that might be a bit more important than gold taps and a Smeg oven. Necessarily, amenity space can suffer but current density targets that apply accross the board mean that decent gardens are a thing of the past for most bulk ne builds...t houses in a nice area, rent 5 of them to the local authority for a few years and sell the rest at a premium and bribe the council with the proceeds. ) of a large Barrat estate. There was a lot of fuss and nimbyism about some of the later, smaller properties being in some way 'assisted' but, IMHO they in no way detracted from the development or the area. Although to be fair we moved a long time back...I think the shared ownership schemes theoretically have a lot of merit. In effect, they allow lower income households to get a foot onto the property ladder which has distinct advantages; they are effectively 'saving' in bricks and mortar; ownership (even in part) inculcates a greater respect for the proerty and neighbourhood; the stakeholding allows the housholder some degree of hedge against price rises; the part ownership enables more realistic income to mortgage cover.
It's a shame property laws and mortgages could not adopt a 'standardised' - thereby cheaper and less unweildy - method of conveyance for such deals.
Mortgage interest releif for FTBs and low income workers would also help of course.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff