One Million Council Houses per year.

[mda03cn]

Exactly El Cid. Council rents now have to be proportionate to those of the private sector. I don't know the exact percentage offhand but I'm sure that a quick search would find the answer. I think the confusion lies in the fact that some people living in council houses get housing benefit which may cover large proportion of their rent so the amount that they pay will be much less. Usually the water rates and a contribution towards the rent costs.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313355/14-05-07_Guidance_on_Rents_for_Social_Housing__Final_.pdf

Edited September 13, 2015 by mda03cn

[Anna B]

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?

 

Another problem is certain parties, like supermarkets, holding on to prime building land to stop rivals building on it.

[El Cid]

Another problem is certain parties, like supermarkets, holding on to prime building land to stop rivals building on it.

 

I would blame the ones that already have houses, making it hard to build on nearby land because it would spoil their view; made worse by our politicians playing the planning system for political gain.

We need to build on Green Belt land, most land was once forest, people need to think about what is best for their children.

[unbeliever]

Exactly El Cid. Council rents now have to be proportionate to those of the private sector. I don't know the exact percentage offhand but I'm sure that a quick search would find the answer. I think the confusion lies in the fact that some people living in council houses get housing benefit which may cover large proportion of their rent so the amount that they pay will be much less. Usually the water rates and a contribution towards the rent costs.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313355/14-05-07_Guidance_on_Rents_for_Social_Housing__Final_.pdf

 

What about the absence of a deposit?

What about all the free things you get on a council house which are not available to private owners?

[El Cid]

What about the absence of a deposit?

What about all the free things you get on a council house which are not available to private owners?

 

Council houses are often larger; but dont the people own the land in the first place, or would that be the Queen of the )people(

[unbeliever]

Council houses are often larger; but dont the people own the land in the first place, or would that be the Queen of the )people(

 

So when you moved from private rented to council, your rent hardly changed but you got a bigger house?

If so, how do you supposed that is arranged without subsidy?

 

Technically in the UK, you don't completely own the land as it to some degree always belongs to the state, but that's just a technicality with no practical implications.

[TJC1]

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?

 

Genuine question. Why 1 million?

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2015 at 10:15 ----------

 

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?

 

Has to be a return on housing....and what about ghettoed areas...needs to be good mix of people not just those on benefits.

[El Cid]

If so, how do you supposed that is arranged without subsidy?

 

 

I have always thought, like you, that there was a subsidy, but I am yet to be given facts that there is.

[unbeliever]

I have always thought, like you, that there was a subsidy, but I am yet to be given facts that there is.

 

There are clever ways of hiding subsidies these days so that you can claim there is "no subsidy" and not technically be a liar. But if the tax payer owns property and is renting it out at below true market value, then that's a subsidy however it's arranged.

[mda03cn]

What about the absence of a deposit?

What about all the free things you get on a council house which are not available to private owners?

 

Why would you need a deposit? I can understand the need for a bond or even a rent in advance?

 

What 'free things' are you meaning? Repairs are done and improvements are made but I'm sure that should be same for private renting as landlords have responsibility for the property. At the end of the tenancy, the house still belongs to the council so the rent paid would go towards the building and upkeep of house.

 

There are some council houses in Sheffield that are over 70 years old. I'm sure that the rent collected over the years has paid for the building, maintenance and 'free things' with plenty left over - so no subsidy needed if it's done right.

Edited September 13, 2015 by mda03cn
Spelling error