One Million Council Houses per year.

[chem1st]

The UK must meet the basic housing needs of it's people.

 

For too long the public sector has not built, there has been a lack of housing for ordinary people, and over the years housing has become a financial tool that impoverishes many to enrich just a few. This has to change, councils must be allowed to build again. The only time housing need has been met is when the public sector builds.

 

We need to build a lot of homes and we need to build them soon. We are capable of building millions of homes per year, a target of one million per year is not unrealistic, it is easily achievable.

 

It would represent just a 4% increase in the housing stock.

 

It would mean building around 10 000 homes in Sheffield per year. It'd take 4 years to double the amount of council housing.

 

We have less than 40 000 council homes in Sheffield.

 

In 2004/5 we had over 50 000.

 

In 2001/2 we had over 60 000.

 

In 1995/6 we had over 70 000.

 

We need to replace the council homes we have lost, and then we need to build some more. It'd take just under 4 years of building 10000 a year to replace the council housing lost since 1996.

 

Council housing is vital to a community, to society. In the late 1960s Sheffield was a city where over a third of the housing was owned by the council, some 37%. People could expect to be housed and housed well, and they were.

 

The amount of social housing in the UK peaked at 31% in the early 1980s (1981) before right to buy took off and subsequently the amount of council housing decreased, reducing access to it, and combined with demolition and a lack of building we end up in a situation where many of the citizenry no longer have any hope of being housed, they are deprived of access to decent quality basic shelter that a working person can realistically afford.

 

Less than 20% of the homes in Sheffield are now owned by the council.

 

To return the balance of housing back in the city back to how it was in the lat 1960s would mean building some 80 000 council homes.

 

Sheffield has 220 000 homes now, and less than 40 000 are council.

 

If we build a very modest 10 000 homes per year, starting with just 5000 per year in 2016 and 2017 we could build 80 000 homes by 2025.

 

Sheffield would be a city of 300 000 homes, and just over a third of them would be council (just over 110 thousand homes).

 

The quality of life of a good 20% of the population would be vastly improved. This would have knock on effects improving the lives of others. Many of the social ills would be tackled, and things like homelessness could be resigned to history.

 

If the country built 1 million council homes per year, in a socially responsible decade, then the country would be a far better place for it and the living standards of the average Brit would be much higher. The 10 million people in need of these homes, could if they united democratically elect a party wiling to build the homes they need. If they got their friends and family to vote in such a way too, then they would be certain to elect a party that would build the homes the country needs.

 

A party capable of building 1 milion council homes per year.

 

What do you think?

 

Do you support the building of 1 million council homes per year?

Edited September 13, 2015 by chem1st

[unbeliever]

I can't answer the poll without more information.

More affordable housing is certainly a good thing. It's hard to arrange these days because of environmental rules limiting where you can build and making building itself more expensive.

Tower blocks with affordable flats might be an option, even though these have historically had many problems.

Council houses have the advantage that the tenants do not have to have a good credit rating or raise a deposit.

Where would you build them? Has land been identified which is suitable? What about the infrastructure: roads, schools, other services?

Where would the money come from? What tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere would be used to raise the money? Or is this to be "printed" money?

Assuming it costs around £25k to build each home, you need to find £25bn/year.

If all these questions already had answers, developers would see an opportunity to make money and these homes would already be being built. So something must be in the way. What is it?

Edited September 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

 

We need to build a lot of homes and we need to build them soon. We are capable of building millions of homes per year, a target of one million per year is not unrealistic, it is easily achievable.

 

 

If many of the people occupying these houses received housing benefit, then it would not be affordable, but if they were sold to mortgage or rent payers, then the money would be going back into the economy and we can afford them.

[unbeliever]

If many of the people occupying these houses received housing benefit, then it would not be affordable, but if they were sold to mortgage or rent payers, then the money would be going back into the economy and we can afford them.

 

We're talking about council houses, so they would presumably all go to the subsidised rented sector. I assume that there are at least 1 million families in receipt of rent subsidy otherwise the OP makes no sense.

[El Cid]

We're talking about council houses, so they would presumably all go to the subsidised rented sector.

 

Are council houses subsidised?

[unbeliever]

Are council houses subsidised?

 

Yes.

The idea, I assume, would be to move those in receipt of rent subsidy from private rented accommodation to government rented accommodation.

A large building program would also increase the supply of low cost housing and make it easier for first time buyers by driving down the prices at the bottom end of the market.

[El Cid]

Yes.

 

Are you meaning, a subsidy in the building of them, or the renting of them?

 

A Tory friend of mine, who lives in social housing, claims that they are not subsidised.

David Cameron wants to sell them off and build a new one in its place, if they receive a subsidy that will not be possible.

[unbeliever]

Are you meaning, a subsidy in the building of them, or the renting of them?

 

A Tory friend of mine, who lives in social housing, claims that they are not subsidised.

David Cameron wants to sell them off and build a new one in its place, if they receive a subsidy that will not be possible.

 

The right to buy scheme includes a subsidy for the buyer.

Tax payers' money is spent at every stage of council housing. How else would they keep the costs to tenants artificially low.

Edited September 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[mda03cn]

The amount of rent charged is also based on supply and demand. As there is a shortage of social housing, this means that private landlords can increase the amount of rent that they charge. This has resulted in the cost of social rents increasing as they are linked to the private sector. It's the money trick all over again.

[El Cid]

The right to buy scheme includes a subsidy for the buyer.

Tax payers' money is spent at every stage of council housing. How else would they keep the costs to tenants artificially low.

 

I am aware of the RTB discount, but not anything else. I would be interested in some facts.

In my own circumstances, I moved from private rented to council, and my rent went up a few pennies. So council rents are not that low.