Why? You could alternatively see prices rising as BTL's move in, or schools and hospitals getting into trouble with poor service, or wages rising (unlikely since local hospitals and schools dont set wages AFAIK), or no effect at all if teachers and nurses are an insignificant percentage of the population.
Given Gordon Browns rather hapless record with taxpayer money, it must be a certainty they'll now be a property crash. eg Gordon sold off all our gold reserves at a record low price, then put the proceeds into euros just before they fell.
I bet a lot of the FTB's he's helping will walk away when negative equity strikes and we the taxpayers left holding the baby.
Each aspect of planning should be done at the appropriate level. For example, whether shadow from a proposed extension will affect a neighbour requires input from the two houses involved; for changes to a road layout that affects other roads, a council can take that into account; for changes that affect the whole town, a council can take that into account.
To suggest that housing issues are the government's responsibility presupposes that employers will not move as a result of employment issues from too few staff.
That most people want to live in the south east does not mean that they should be able to. The pressures on house prices are economic and the market will work them out. I would personally like house prices lower, but I don't want planning protection to be overruled in order for that to be realised.
I think you're missing the shortage of supply, the only places where there are surplus supply is in decrepid terraces in inner northern inner-cities and similar homes which few people have an interest in living in. Whether it's the south-east or anywhere else, more homes are needed, yet more homes are generally not being built at anything like a realistic rate due to the excessively tight planning regulations. That doesn't mean that I'm saying central government to control all of it, you read in way too much into my claims that the local level is not the appropriate level for all planning decisions, I'm sure Milton Keynes wouldn't exist if the original villagers controlled planning.
not really, remote faceless officials define policies and structures without recourse to the public or the market. They then get to pass plans at appeal.
Local elected representatives get to accept or reject plans against that structure, but the mismatch arises in the construction of a vision that doesn't match what people want.
So the result is planning policies to build houses in flood risk areas where builders can't sell houses because they won't get insurance. Or developers applying to build in an area where housing was not planned (but somebody wanted it) while ignoring areas where it is planned (but nobody wants it).
18% is getting nearer sense but some of your figures still seem very high. there's also a lot more singles households forming so perhaps it is just idiosyncratic counting as andy suggests....
A component that's being overlooked is today's hot fashion for divorce and two-home families. Never has divorce and broken homes been so popular. The result is that a family that once occupied one house, now does the Blair-friendly thing by splitting up and needing two homes.
As the owner of several properties, I warmly welcome this pocket-lining trend and pray that it continues.
Many FTBs could buy a house, its just that they are not prepared to throw away money on an overpriced box in a crap area, particularly when prices are on the skids and will be a lot lower in 6 months to a years time.So they can go on strike...from buying a house, until prices drop a lot further.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.