You might expect the same old story, but this time there is a twist in the plot. A big company is seeking to build a new housing estate on the edge of an English village, and are opposed by many local people. So far so normal. What is remarkable is that on this occasion the objections being raised do actually go beyond the usual parrot cries of the NIMBY brigade.
The unexpected objection is that the village already has empty houses which are on the market but which are not selling. Surely that makes it game, set, and match to the objectors.
On the one hand, it is curious that the big company expects to build houses and presumably make a return on its invesment in a village where houses are not selling. On the other hand the fact remains that Britain needs houses.
There are huge numbers of people in this country who are either living rough, living in garden sheds, or living in overcrowded accommodation. The solution is to build more houses, and not just a few more. We need a lot more.
Actually there are other solutions, but only in theory. We could make the best use of our existing housing stock by banning people from owning more than one house, and by putting an immediate and permanent stop to immigration - but these things will not happen, because the British people will not vote for them.
And so we are left with the zero option of building more houses, and we must also accept that green belt land is not exempt from the bulldozer - but this alone would not solve the problem.
Consider a young person - I will call him Sam. Sam is nineteen years old, and lives with his parents and four younger siblings in a three-bedroom house. It would be helpful to him and his family if he could find a place of his own, but Sam works thirty hours each week for ten pence more than the minimum wage. We cannot expect him to be able to take out a mortgage and buy a place of his own.
Some readers might be thinking that simple economic reasoning comes into play here. If a house is unsold, then the vendor will at some point lower the price - but how low would the price have to go to interest Sam in seeking a mortgage?
Let us be fantastical and assume that the new houses on the edge of the village will be put on the market for just one pound each. Sam can afford to pay a pound, but on top of that he will have his conveyancing fees. Once he is in the property he will need carpets, curtains, curtain rails, furniture, and white goods. He may need to call out a plumber or other tradesman from time to time. Does he really want to burden himself with all of that expenditure?
Let us instead assume that some of the new houses on the edge of the village will be put on the private rental market. Sam might be tempted to move into such a house. On the one hand he would not need to worry about conveyancing fees or the cost of maintaining the property, but on the other hand he would still need to buy furniture and white goods - unless the property is let as furnished of course - and he might also have to buy carpets and curtains and curtain rails. Add to this the fact that he almost certainly has little or no security of tenure, and he might well choose to remain living in his overcrowded parental home.
By contrast, let us assume that some of the new houses on the edge of the village will be made available in the social housing sector. Sam might be more likely to move into one of the houses if he is offered a secure tenancy, but how many of these tenancies would realistically be on offer?
In short, more housing is not on its own the solution to the housing crisis. It helps if at least some of that new housing is made available in the social housing sector, and it helps also if as many people as possible are in work and have a disposable income.
Related previous posts include:
Nasty NIMBYs
What exactly is affordable housing?
A large family versus private landlords
Stop being nasty to those less fortunate
No comments:
Post a Comment