You save money by building houses!

[chem1st]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/mar/30/jon-snow-houses-video?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3486

 

He says we are effectively at the end of the third world war and we need to build 2 million new council houses.

 

Jon Snow is a man who understands the need for affordable housing.

 

But can we build it quick enough to avert the coming civil war?

 

We have perhaps 3 years...

 

666k units per year is possible.

[Blue Moon]

That's far too much like a simple and sensible solution! They will never go for it. But looking back, Nu Labour hardly pulled their socks out when it came to sorting out the affordable housing crisis, from what I can see. A few part rent / part buy - if you happen to have £50,000 spare and still don't mind paying £400 pcm rent on to of that - is all I saw built as an answer. Not defending this buch of pasty eating wallers in governance now by saying this, either...

[janie48]

If John Snow says it..it must be right...he's lovely.

[Rupert_Baehr]

If - as Jon snow suggests - you build houses on greenfield sites, where do you grow food?

 

The last time the UK was anywhere near self-sufficient for food was during WWll. - With more land available for agriculture, food rationing and a far smaller population.

 

The global population is increasing, the global demand for food is increasing, the cost of transporting food is increasing. The UK currently imports more than 40% of its food.

 

Is it really a good idea to make that situation worse?

[Tony]

1. Greenfield sites aren't necessarily fit for agriculture.

2. There are now some very clever ways of intensively producing food at low cost without large amounts of land.

 

The UK could be self-sufficient within 10 years, though it might be a bit boring and also be damaging to industry.

[chem1st]

If - as Jon snow suggests - you build houses on greenfield sites, where do you grow food?

 

The last time the UK was anywhere near self-sufficient for food was during WWll. - With more land available for agriculture, food rationing and a far smaller population.

 

The global population is increasing, the global demand for food is increasing, the cost of transporting food is increasing. The UK currently imports more than 40% of its food.

 

Is it really a good idea to make that situation worse?

 

As if anybody cares about growing food. Landowners get paid for merely owning land via the farm subsidy system. They don't actually have to grow anything.

 

If you want to produce lots of food you need to reduce the allotment waiting lists across the country to nil. Small scale farms produce more food per unit of land. And people with allotments pay to rent the land!

[Rupert_Baehr]

1. Greenfield sites aren't necessarily fit for agriculture.

2. There are now some very clever ways of intensively producing food at low cost without large amounts of land.

 

The UK could be self-sufficient within 10 years, though it might be a bit boring and also be damaging to industry.

 

Surely, given those clever ways of producing food intensively (and the Dutch are renowned for doing that) greenfield sites which was previously deemed to be 'unsuitable for agriculture' will (if they haven't already) become desirable for agriculture?

 

There are other problems with building on Greenfield sites. Prescott's development plan mandated a new town North East of Norwich. The site was low-grade agricultural land. - Though still agricultural land.

 

I understand that the plan is going ahead. Unfortunately, not only will they have to build houses, shops, schools etc - they will also have to build roads, find water supplies (much of the water in Norfolk goes to Essex), provide gas mains and electrical supplies.

 

Once they've done all that, there is the matter of jobs. There will be some new jobs - those necessary to support the community - but not enough for everybody and a large number of the new residents will have to commute. - Putting further strain on an already inadequate transport system.

 

Chem1st wants to see 'allotments for everybody'. Those allotments would need to be near where people live and I suspect that the existing allotment land would be a prime target for developers.

 

I doubt that the UK will ever become self-sufficient for food, but I suspect that the increasing global demand for food and the increasing cost of shipping food will mandate increased production and a move towards self-sufficiency.

 

England (as opposed to the United Kingdom) is now the most densely-populated country in Europe. Perhaps it's time to limit immigration figures dramatically? - I doubt many people would want to live in the Scottish Highlands or rural regions in Wales, but there's far more space there.

[Tony]

As if anybody cares about growing food. Landowners get paid for merely owning land via the farm subsidy system. They don't actually have to grow anything.

 

If you want to produce lots of food you need to reduce the allotment waiting lists across the country to nil. Small scale farms produce more food per unit of land. And people with allotments pay to rent the land!

Most people want other people to produce lots of food, not themselves.

[anywebsite]

Surely, given those clever ways of producing food intensively (and the Dutch are renowned for doing that) greenfield sites which was previously deemed to be 'unsuitable for agriculture' will (if they haven't already) become desirable for agriculture?

 

There are other problems with building on Greenfield sites. Prescott's development plan mandated a new town North East of Norwich. The site was low-grade agricultural land. - Though still agricultural land.

 

I understand that the plan is going ahead. Unfortunately, not only will they have to build houses, shops, schools etc - they will also have to build roads, find water supplies (much of the water in Norfolk goes to Essex), provide gas mains and electrical supplies.

 

Once they've done all that, there is the matter of jobs. There will be some new jobs - those necessary to support the community - but not enough for everybody and a large number of the new residents will have to commute. - Putting further strain on an already inadequate transport system.

 

Chem1st wants to see 'allotments for everybody'. Those allotments would need to be near where people live and I suspect that the existing allotment land would be a prime target for developers.

 

I doubt that the UK will ever become self-sufficient for food, but I suspect that the increasing global demand for food and the increasing cost of shipping food will mandate increased production and a move towards self-sufficiency.

 

England (as opposed to the United Kingdom) is now the most densely-populated country in Europe. Perhaps it's time to limit immigration figures dramatically? - I doubt many people would want to live in the Scottish Highlands or rural regions in Wales, but there's far more space there.

 

You should do some more reading about Holland.

 

Anyway, the UK hasn't been self-sufficient for food since before the industrial revolution, why would we stop imports now?

 

It's either build more houses or pay ever more extortionate rents to private landlords in housing benefit. £500/month+ in rent paid by the government can pay for a house to be built in a few years, the rest is just profit. Otherwise the housing benefit bill just keeps rising.

 

What's your solution? A cull?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Hardly.

 

But why build new houses on greenfield sites when there is no shortage of existing unused buildings which could be converted into housing?

 

How many disused breweries, factories, shops and other commercial premises are there in Sheffield?

 

They all have foundations, they all have outside walls. Most of them (I assume) have roofs, there are already roads running past them, gas, electricity, water and sewers could - if not already connected - be connected at minimal expense.

 

It's hardly a new idea. The Docklands conversion scheme took a run-down disused district and converted it into very attractive and desirable (for those who want to live in London) housing.

 

This thread and a number of others have bemoaned the state of the City Centre in Sheffield.

 

It appears that people don't want to shop there,that it's very expensive for shops to operate in the city centre and the area is dilapidated.

 

If people want to shop elsewhere it's difficult to stop them.

 

Why not regenerate the city centre (and other run-down and disused parts of the city) by converting the existing unused buildings into flats?

 

If you have a field which is sitting empty, it does (at least) absorb rainwater. Roofs do not absorb rainwater and they dump that water very rapidly into waterways. I wonder how much of the flooding in the UK during the past 10 or 15 years is attributable to loss of exposed land?

 

Those areas (much of East Anglia) which rely on rainwater soaking through the soil into an aquifer have been hit with a 'double whammy'. More houses means less area to feed the aquifer and more people to take water out of the aquifer.

 

I'm certainly - as I've said before -not anti-immigration (particularly as I've been an immigrant in one country or another for the last 40-odd years.)

 

The UK has treaties with the rest of the EU which permit the free movement of persons and has laws which afford citizens of certain countries the right to migrate to and reside in the UK. Those treaties and laws allow (potentially) large numbers of European and ex-Commonwealth citizens free access to the UK - but that works both ways. According to this article (somewhat dated, it was written in 2006) 5.5 million Britons live abroad.

 

The government may not be able to limit the numbers of EU and Commonwealth citizens coming into the country, but it could control the number of immigrants from elsewhere. They talk about it ... but what do they actually do?

 

Many companies argue that without immigrants, they would be unable to obtain sufficient suitably-qualified and experienced staff. Fair enough.

 

Why not change the immigration laws (for non-entitled persons) to say something like:

 

1. You may only immigrate to the United Kingdom if you have a job to go to or you are a family member of such a person.

2. Until you become a naturalised Briton (with a right to live in the UK) you may only stay in the UK provided you are in that job, in a job approved by the Home Office, or able to support yourself by independent means.

3. Your employer is responsible for finding accommodation for you.

 

I can hear the howls about the last one ... But if an employer genuinely needs to import an individual to do a job, why should that employer not be responsible for the person(s) (s)he brings into the country?

 

I doubt too many people would try to bring in cheap labour from overseas if they were responsible for housing those workers.

 

The first two conditions might sound harsh - but they are what happens in other countries. I am a 'Resident Alien' when I'm in the US.

 

When I immigrated I had to agree that I would not be a drain upon social services for 5 years (no benefits at all during that period) and (although I doubt they are going to do so ) I could be deported without any reason.

 

(Getting slightly off-topic, but: ) Were I to commit a serious crime here, then after I had been released from prison, I would be deported. There would be none of the crap you hear in the UK about: "Oh, we can't deport him, because then his family would suffer."

 

The rules are simple: "If you are a resident alien living in the US and you commit a crime then you will be deported after you have served your sentence. If you don't like that - don't commit the crime."

 

The UK is a soft touch.

 

I've no idea of the real size of the 'housing problem' in the UK. I visit the country 2 or 3 times a year and the size of the problem seems to vary depending on who is telling the story.

 

If you listen to Chem1st, it's almost a disaster with millions of people living rough.

 

From what I do know about rents, they are high - but they are far lower than the rents in other parts of the country (and I'm not thinking about London prices, either.)

 

A number of people on this forum have complained about the rents charged by landlords. In the past, if you owned a property and rented it out, then you received the net rent (after operating costs and before taxes) and you could also expect to make money from annual increases in the value of the house. I've no doubt some people made a lot of money.

 

House prices are not increasing, so if you were to buy a house for, say, £150,000 and rent it out, then your return on investment would be rent less (running costs and taxes.) You would have to take the risk of the tenant trashing the house and doing a runner (Been there.)

 

Were you to invest that £150,000, then your return would be whatever you could get less taxes. If the net proceeds from the rent are less than you could get elsewhere, why bother renting out the house?

 

If the 'buy to let' landlords make less than they would make investing the money elsewhere, what would that do to the number of houses available for rent? - Those who were stuck with houses wouldn't have much choice, but those considering 'buy to rent' would probably run a mile.