FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Empty Property - What can we do?
Empty Property - What can we do?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them." If a property has been empty and unused for x amount of time. The government could maybe issue a compulsory purchase order, renovate and then manage it for homes or businesses. | |||
| |||
"It may be empty, but it belongs to someone. Compulsory purchase would mean a whole new attitude change. "  | |||
| |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone." If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. | |||
| |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it." Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it." If it's been empty and unused for 7 or more years, probably most owners would welcome the sale. If not, maybe they could be given another X number of years to do something with it. Such as with listed buildings, but maybe at a less stringent level of regulation. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? " There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid " Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase? | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. If it's been empty and unused for 7 or more years, probably most owners would welcome the sale. If not, maybe they could be given another X number of years to do something with it. Such as with listed buildings, but maybe at a less stringent level of regulation. " Good idea, I wouldn’t try and force anyone to sell a property but I think the majority would sell, you have to remember that these empty properties still have to pay council tax and a certain level of house insurance | |||
| |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?"I don't have all the answers 
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available? | |||
| |||
"So the government would spend £150000 to refurb a house worth £100000 They couldn't do it without a massive loss to the taxpayers, cheaper to put people up in hotels." Are you plucking figures out of fresh air? A derelict house would be nowhere near full market value. | |||
"So the government would spend £150000 to refurb a house worth £100000 They couldn't do it without a massive loss to the taxpayers, cheaper to put people up in hotels." "Massive loss" could refer to any government spending. Council tax goes to the upkeep street lights. This could be considered a "massive loss". It's a service provided. Why would this be any different? Besides, once the tenants are renting the properties, there is income coming in for the long term. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?"The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council. The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned. 5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number."Of course, there are plenty of hurdles. New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts. The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021."I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak. To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service. If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down? Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater? I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
""Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future" This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this? And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
"Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future"
This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this?
And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing. "You have taken those points It was a challenge to think what would the scheme bring positive and negative. Thinking about it all not just the idealist view.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post, I would be very interested in your views on costs, management and many of the other things mentioned.
| |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
"Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future"
This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this?
And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing.
You have taken those points It was a challenge to think what would the scheme bring positive and negative. Thinking about it all not just the idealist view.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post, I would be very interested in your views on costs, management and many of the other things mentioned.
"Honestly, I don't have a concept of the costs of such a scheme. You seem more more knowledgeable than I am on the subject. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
"Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future"
This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this?
And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing.
You have taken those points It was a challenge to think what would the scheme bring positive and negative. Thinking about it all not just the idealist view.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post, I would be very interested in your views on costs, management and many of the other things mentioned.
"If we just think of the simplest positive in this. It would replenish social housing stock which I think most would agree is severely lacking. The impact it would have on the local housing market would be positive, market prices are massively over inflated because of lack of affordable housing. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
"Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future"
This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this?
And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing.
You have taken those points It was a challenge to think what would the scheme bring positive and negative. Thinking about it all not just the idealist view.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post, I would be very interested in your views on costs, management and many of the other things mentioned.
If we just think of the simplest positive in this.
It would replenish social housing stock which I think most would agree is severely lacking.
The impact it would have on the local housing market would be positive, market prices are massively over inflated because of lack of affordable housing."Replenish the housing stock
Having gone through the ups, downs and costs, I think building housing stock is a far better answer than forcing compulsory purchase orders on existing stock.
The costs are off the scale for existing housing purchases, however taking land already owned and building the houses to modern specs and modern ways of living would be far more cost effective and beneficial to the overall success and longevity of the project.
do it right in one place, template it and begin to roll it out elsewhere. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
"Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future"
This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this?
And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing.
You have taken those points It was a challenge to think what would the scheme bring positive and negative. Thinking about it all not just the idealist view.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post, I would be very interested in your views on costs, management and many of the other things mentioned.
If we just think of the simplest positive in this.
It would replenish social housing stock which I think most would agree is severely lacking.
The impact it would have on the local housing market would be positive, market prices are massively over inflated because of lack of affordable housing.
Replenish the housing stock
Having gone through the ups, downs and costs, I think building housing stock is a far better answer than forcing compulsory purchase orders on existing stock.
The costs are off the scale for existing housing purchases, however taking land already owned and building the houses to modern specs and modern ways of living would be far more cost effective and beneficial to the overall success and longevity of the project.
do it right in one place, template it and begin to roll it out elsewhere. "You're knowledgeable on this stuff. What's your take on the OPs question: "What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country?" | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
"Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future"
This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this?
And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing.
You have taken those points It was a challenge to think what would the scheme bring positive and negative. Thinking about it all not just the idealist view.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post, I would be very interested in your views on costs, management and many of the other things mentioned.
If we just think of the simplest positive in this.
It would replenish social housing stock which I think most would agree is severely lacking.
The impact it would have on the local housing market would be positive, market prices are massively over inflated because of lack of affordable housing.
Replenish the housing stock
Having gone through the ups, downs and costs, I think building housing stock is a far better answer than forcing compulsory purchase orders on existing stock.
The costs are off the scale for existing housing purchases, however taking land already owned and building the houses to modern specs and modern ways of living would be far more cost effective and beneficial to the overall success and longevity of the project.
do it right in one place, template it and begin to roll it out elsewhere.
You're knowledgeable on this stuff.
What's your take on the OPs question:
"What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country?""What do you want to do with it is the reasonable question. Housing people simply isn't affordable, doable or beneficial for the large numbers of people who need housing, in my opinion. Would you prefer people be given modern housing, with modern features such as infrastructures that supports healthier lifestyles, cleaner air and designed to build a community ? So what do you want to do with empty property? | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
"Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future"
This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this?
And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing.
You have taken those points It was a challenge to think what would the scheme bring positive and negative. Thinking about it all not just the idealist view.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post, I would be very interested in your views on costs, management and many of the other things mentioned.
If we just think of the simplest positive in this.
It would replenish social housing stock which I think most would agree is severely lacking.
The impact it would have on the local housing market would be positive, market prices are massively over inflated because of lack of affordable housing.
Replenish the housing stock
Having gone through the ups, downs and costs, I think building housing stock is a far better answer than forcing compulsory purchase orders on existing stock.
The costs are off the scale for existing housing purchases, however taking land already owned and building the houses to modern specs and modern ways of living would be far more cost effective and beneficial to the overall success and longevity of the project.
do it right in one place, template it and begin to roll it out elsewhere.
You're knowledgeable on this stuff.
What's your take on the OPs question:
"What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country?"
What do you want to do with it is the reasonable question.
Housing people simply isn't affordable, doable or beneficial for the large numbers of people who need housing, in my opinion.
Would you prefer people be given modern housing, with modern features such as infrastructures that supports healthier lifestyles, cleaner air and designed to build a community ?
So what do you want to do with empty property? "Well I don't know. Reusing or repurposing it seems sensible. Just wondering what your suggestion might be. Even if it's "do nothing" | |||
"So the government would spend £150000 to refurb a house worth £100000 They couldn't do it without a massive loss to the taxpayers, cheaper to put people up in hotels. "Massive loss" could refer to any government spending. Council tax goes to the upkeep street lights. This could be considered a "massive loss". It's a service provided. Why would this be any different? Besides, once the tenants are renting the properties, there is income coming in for the long term." Assuming the residents were actually paying and not getting rent benefits The private renting sector is pretty good at spotting what's viable and the derelict properties are probably derelict for good reason. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
"Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future"
This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this?
And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing.
You have taken those points It was a challenge to think what would the scheme bring positive and negative. Thinking about it all not just the idealist view.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post, I would be very interested in your views on costs, management and many of the other things mentioned.
If we just think of the simplest positive in this.
It would replenish social housing stock which I think most would agree is severely lacking.
The impact it would have on the local housing market would be positive, market prices are massively over inflated because of lack of affordable housing.
Replenish the housing stock
Having gone through the ups, downs and costs, I think building housing stock is a far better answer than forcing compulsory purchase orders on existing stock.
The costs are off the scale for existing housing purchases, however taking land already owned and building the houses to modern specs and modern ways of living would be far more cost effective and beneficial to the overall success and longevity of the project.
do it right in one place, template it and begin to roll it out elsewhere.
You're knowledgeable on this stuff.
What's your take on the OPs question:
"What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country?"
What do you want to do with it is the reasonable question.
Housing people simply isn't affordable, doable or beneficial for the large numbers of people who need housing, in my opinion.
Would you prefer people be given modern housing, with modern features such as infrastructures that supports healthier lifestyles, cleaner air and designed to build a community ?
So what do you want to do with empty property?
Well I don't know. Reusing or repurposing it seems sensible.
Just wondering what your suggestion might be. Even if it's "do nothing"
"Personally, I would do nothing with private property. As mentioned in other replies, they are someones property and it up to the owner what they want to do with it. Most private empty properties are in London and the costal areas, and to be classed as empty it only needs to be standing unoccupied for 6 months. Other properties that are standing empty, such as whole streets of houses on ex council managed estates are usually in bad condition, mainly in areas that have not seen growth or opportunities for a long time. The estates were not built with longevity or thought to the way people live or would live, and many moved away as they became run down. Those empty properties, bulldoze them. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. If it's been empty and unused for 7 or more years, probably most owners would welcome the sale. If not, maybe they could be given another X number of years to do something with it. Such as with listed buildings, but maybe at a less stringent level of regulation. " France had a system that if you bought land or property and did nothing to it for 20 yr you had to sell it at the price you paid ,not sure if they still do it ,sounds fair to me. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
"Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future"
This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this?
And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing.
You have taken those points It was a challenge to think what would the scheme bring positive and negative. Thinking about it all not just the idealist view.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post, I would be very interested in your views on costs, management and many of the other things mentioned.
If we just think of the simplest positive in this.
It would replenish social housing stock which I think most would agree is severely lacking.
The impact it would have on the local housing market would be positive, market prices are massively over inflated because of lack of affordable housing.
Replenish the housing stock
Having gone through the ups, downs and costs, I think building housing stock is a far better answer than forcing compulsory purchase orders on existing stock.
The costs are off the scale for existing housing purchases, however taking land already owned and building the houses to modern specs and modern ways of living would be far more cost effective and beneficial to the overall success and longevity of the project.
do it right in one place, template it and begin to roll it out elsewhere.
You're knowledgeable on this stuff.
What's your take on the OPs question:
"What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country?"
What do you want to do with it is the reasonable question.
Housing people simply isn't affordable, doable or beneficial for the large numbers of people who need housing, in my opinion.
Would you prefer people be given modern housing, with modern features such as infrastructures that supports healthier lifestyles, cleaner air and designed to build a community ?
So what do you want to do with empty property?
Well I don't know. Reusing or repurposing it seems sensible.
Just wondering what your suggestion might be. Even if it's "do nothing"
Personally, I would do nothing with private property. As mentioned in other replies, they are someones property and it up to the owner what they want to do with it. Most private empty properties are in London and the costal areas, and to be classed as empty it only needs to be standing unoccupied for 6 months.
Other properties that are standing empty, such as whole streets of houses on ex council managed estates are usually in bad condition, mainly in areas that have not seen growth or opportunities for a long time. The estates were not built with longevity or thought to the way people live or would live, and many moved away as they became run down.
Those empty properties, bulldoze them.
"So bulldoze and rebuild could be an option for those areas? | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
The hurdles as I see it are many. The local councils that will get saddled with the upkeep costs will need money for a whole host of new and improved departments, to simply keep on top of the housing stock. Where will this money come from, increases in council tax, it is after all a service provided by the council.
The cost of housing is a restrictive element and probably the highest hurdle in the idea. The average house price in the UK is £296K. If we multiply that number by 5000 it give us £1,480,000,000 or £1.48Billion. That number does not cover the maintenance costs the wages and all the other things mentioned.
5000 homes, nothing else. If this scheme was to make a significant difference it would need to be at least 20 times that number.
Of course, there are plenty of hurdles.
New depts wouldn't be needed as most councils already have these depts.
The government spent 1.6b on temporary housing costs in 2021.
I'm not doubting that, but that cost is for a managed service, so to speak.
To make a dent they would need to find £30billion in stock and then all of the periphery costs that create the managed service.
If we consider that the scheme was introduced and successfully housed 100K people, what would that actually mean for the future? Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future? What would the impact be to house prices in the area or indeed the country, would it push them up or down?
Finally, this scheme would it encourage more people to risk their lives crossing the channel if the rewards were even greater?
I would love to see every person housed, working and happy but the dream of that is such a long way from being a reality.
"Would it encourage more people to not find work, not focus on their future"
This is a very daily mail type argument. Are there more than a handful of people in the country who are actually like this?
And what difference would this be to existing council house schemes? There are people who badly need help to find housing.
You have taken those points It was a challenge to think what would the scheme bring positive and negative. Thinking about it all not just the idealist view.
Any thoughts on the rest of the post, I would be very interested in your views on costs, management and many of the other things mentioned.
If we just think of the simplest positive in this.
It would replenish social housing stock which I think most would agree is severely lacking.
The impact it would have on the local housing market would be positive, market prices are massively over inflated because of lack of affordable housing.
Replenish the housing stock
Having gone through the ups, downs and costs, I think building housing stock is a far better answer than forcing compulsory purchase orders on existing stock.
The costs are off the scale for existing housing purchases, however taking land already owned and building the houses to modern specs and modern ways of living would be far more cost effective and beneficial to the overall success and longevity of the project.
do it right in one place, template it and begin to roll it out elsewhere.
You're knowledgeable on this stuff.
What's your take on the OPs question:
"What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country?"
What do you want to do with it is the reasonable question.
Housing people simply isn't affordable, doable or beneficial for the large numbers of people who need housing, in my opinion.
Would you prefer people be given modern housing, with modern features such as infrastructures that supports healthier lifestyles, cleaner air and designed to build a community ?
So what do you want to do with empty property?
Well I don't know. Reusing or repurposing it seems sensible.
Just wondering what your suggestion might be. Even if it's "do nothing"
Personally, I would do nothing with private property. As mentioned in other replies, they are someones property and it up to the owner what they want to do with it. Most private empty properties are in London and the costal areas, and to be classed as empty it only needs to be standing unoccupied for 6 months.
Other properties that are standing empty, such as whole streets of houses on ex council managed estates are usually in bad condition, mainly in areas that have not seen growth or opportunities for a long time. The estates were not built with longevity or thought to the way people live or would live, and many moved away as they became run down.
Those empty properties, bulldoze them.
So bulldoze and rebuild could be an option for those areas?"I would have thought so, as long as those areas are built with an infrastructure that supports modern living, clean air and cutting edge architecture that promotes wellbeing. Change the focus and encourage regeneration in areas through futuristic plans, make them a place lots of people would want to live and the investment could pay off for years to come. Neglect it with make do and it wont take long before it has run its course. | |||
| |||
"Not read beyond maybe opening third of this thread (bloomin’ long ‘un this) but just the amount of barriers being raised brings into sharp focus (to me) the lack of foresight of the Thatcher Govt for allowing council tenants the “right to buy” and then subsequently not fully replenishing the social housing stock that was sold off! People like me have admittedly benefitted greatly from house price increases driven by shortage of supply, but I do not think that would have been hugely impacted by more social housing?" I'm actually for right to buy. The real fuck up was not replenishing stock. Who the fuck sells everything and then doesn't restock? Unless you're closing the business down. | |||
"Not read beyond maybe opening third of this thread (bloomin’ long ‘un this) but just the amount of barriers being raised brings into sharp focus (to me) the lack of foresight of the Thatcher Govt for allowing council tenants the “right to buy” and then subsequently not fully replenishing the social housing stock that was sold off! People like me have admittedly benefitted greatly from house price increases driven by shortage of supply, but I do not think that would have been hugely impacted by more social housing? I'm actually for right to buy. The real fuck up was not replenishing stock. Who the fuck sells everything and then doesn't restock? Unless you're closing the business down." | |||
| |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it." Like the second home taxes but on going? Good idea. | |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them." This is so complex so 1. My late mother's property is empty and will be for about 2 years from her passing to being able to sell it. 2. There are in hastings where I live empty properties that need more work done to them than they are worth. Would you want the government to get in valved in a 2 room listed cottage with out a roof and is being let to fall down so it can be pulled down. The other point is some, no lots of the social housing is in such a pore state of repair thay can't look after what they all ready have. Lots have damp, and are out of date but nothing is done. There is no easy fix and buying empty property will not help. And how would manage it and how would be allowed to live In it. | |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them. This is so complex so 1. My late mother's property is empty and will be for about 2 years from her passing to being able to sell it. 2. There are in hastings where I live empty properties that need more work done to them than they are worth. Would you want the government to get in valved in a 2 room listed cottage with out a roof and is being let to fall down so it can be pulled down. The other point is some, no lots of the social housing is in such a pore state of repair thay can't look after what they all ready have. Lots have damp, and are out of date but nothing is done. There is no easy fix and buying empty property will not help. And how would manage it and how would be allowed to live In it." 1. Obviously extenuating circumstances. 2. This has been discussed at fair length, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to demolish and rebuild. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?"So you saying if I don't sell my late mother's property and leave it longenough I won't have to pay the inheritance tax? Would that not leave more properties empty longer. | |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them. This is so complex so 1. My late mother's property is empty and will be for about 2 years from her passing to being able to sell it. 2. There are in hastings where I live empty properties that need more work done to them than they are worth. Would you want the government to get in valved in a 2 room listed cottage with out a roof and is being let to fall down so it can be pulled down. The other point is some, no lots of the social housing is in such a pore state of repair thay can't look after what they all ready have. Lots have damp, and are out of date but nothing is done. There is no easy fix and buying empty property will not help. And how would manage it and how would be allowed to live In it. 1. Obviously extenuating circumstances. 2. This has been discussed at fair length, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to demolish and rebuild." You can't demolish a listed building it's against the law. So if its worth £500,000 as is and the cost to repair is £1m it just gets left once its un safe you can start to dismantal but if there is asbestos then expensive and if a soil sample shows contamination you can't re build. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Someone owns an empty property, maybe it was left to them after a parent died. They do nothing with it for a period of time and at a fixed point in time it it taken from them under a compulsory purchase order. Who is the purchaser and what happens to the house once purchased and who maintains it? Would a compulsory purchase order pay the actual market rate, solicitors fees, stamp duties and any inheritance tax owed? There's a lot of questions there so I'll apologise in advance if I miss any points. The purchaser is the government, after purchase it is added to the social housing stock. The 'market rate' will be determined by in house valuer, that woukd depend on a number of variables. Solicitors fees would obviously be paid by the purchaser (government), stamp duty could be waived. If its been sitting for more than 7 years there would be no inheritance tax to be paid Thanks More questions:
What would be the upper market value of the property purchased for this scheme.
The ownership of the house still is not clear to me, with ownership comes maintenance costs, insurances and a lot of administration for rent collection, failure to pay, repairs, moves in and out, evictions and so on. The owner would need to know how many houses were going to be purchased and how they could fund the support of them.
Stamp duties and inheritance tax run into the many thousands even on relatively modest priced houses, this would be a loss to the state, I can see the argument that they were sitting there not doing anything so nothing was due. However that is not the case, the house is now sold and those taxes are missing.
Final question How many houses would you expect to purchase?
I don't have all the answers
Upper market value? No idea.
The ownership is clear, the local authority (government) would own and maintain. It becomes part of the social housing stock.
Stamp duty? Governement would be paying themselves?
Inheritance tax? Allow zero inheritance tax if it has been empty for a set period. It's a tax break, we already give plenty to corporations.
How many expected? How many are available?
So you saying if I don't sell my late mother's property and leave it longenough I won't have to pay the inheritance tax? Would that not leave more properties empty longer."Yes that's what I'm saying, youvgrt a tax break if it's been sat empty for a set period. I realise it's not perfect. It could be a reduction in tax. I'm not an expert here. Sits empty for 7 years and you get a break on it equivalent to what you would've earnt in rent for 7 years. There has to be a way to stop you 'playing the system' | |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them. This is so complex so 1. My late mother's property is empty and will be for about 2 years from her passing to being able to sell it. 2. There are in hastings where I live empty properties that need more work done to them than they are worth. Would you want the government to get in valved in a 2 room listed cottage with out a roof and is being let to fall down so it can be pulled down. The other point is some, no lots of the social housing is in such a pore state of repair thay can't look after what they all ready have. Lots have damp, and are out of date but nothing is done. There is no easy fix and buying empty property will not help. And how would manage it and how would be allowed to live In it. 1. Obviously extenuating circumstances. 2. This has been discussed at fair length, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to demolish and rebuild. You can't demolish a listed building it's against the law. So if its worth £500,000 as is and the cost to repair is £1m it just gets left once its un safe you can start to dismantal but if there is asbestos then expensive and if a soil sample shows contamination you can't re build." Listed building can be demolished with consent. The government would be demolishing them so I'm sure they can give themselves consent. | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it." Double it for every year it’s left empty | |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them. This is so complex so 1. My late mother's property is empty and will be for about 2 years from her passing to being able to sell it. 2. There are in hastings where I live empty properties that need more work done to them than they are worth. Would you want the government to get in valved in a 2 room listed cottage with out a roof and is being let to fall down so it can be pulled down. The other point is some, no lots of the social housing is in such a pore state of repair thay can't look after what they all ready have. Lots have damp, and are out of date but nothing is done. There is no easy fix and buying empty property will not help. And how would manage it and how would be allowed to live In it. 1. Obviously extenuating circumstances. 2. This has been discussed at fair length, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to demolish and rebuild. You can't demolish a listed building it's against the law. So if its worth £500,000 as is and the cost to repair is £1m it just gets left once its un safe you can start to dismantal but if there is asbestos then expensive and if a soil sample shows contamination you can't re build. Listed building can be demolished with consent. The government would be demolishing them so I'm sure they can give themselves consent." Consent is given by English Heritage and on one job i was on it tock 6 months to agree how to repoint the property. ill send you a PM link to a site you can see some of the problems | |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them. This is so complex so 1. My late mother's property is empty and will be for about 2 years from her passing to being able to sell it. 2. There are in hastings where I live empty properties that need more work done to them than they are worth. Would you want the government to get in valved in a 2 room listed cottage with out a roof and is being let to fall down so it can be pulled down. The other point is some, no lots of the social housing is in such a pore state of repair thay can't look after what they all ready have. Lots have damp, and are out of date but nothing is done. There is no easy fix and buying empty property will not help. And how would manage it and how would be allowed to live In it. 1. Obviously extenuating circumstances. 2. This has been discussed at fair length, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to demolish and rebuild. You can't demolish a listed building it's against the law. So if its worth £500,000 as is and the cost to repair is £1m it just gets left once its un safe you can start to dismantal but if there is asbestos then expensive and if a soil sample shows contamination you can't re build. Listed building can be demolished with consent. The government would be demolishing them so I'm sure they can give themselves consent. Consent is given by English Heritage and on one job i was on it tock 6 months to agree how to repoint the property. ill send you a PM link to a site you can see some of the problems " I'm aware of some of the problems. You're not the UK Government though, as I said, I know its not straightforward but I'm sure we can do something with them | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty " Would that include property in probate. I don't think? i can let a property i don't own but have to pay All the bills yes insurance and council tax is reduced as there is no one living there. | |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them. This is so complex so 1. My late mother's property is empty and will be for about 2 years from her passing to being able to sell it. 2. There are in hastings where I live empty properties that need more work done to them than they are worth. Would you want the government to get in valved in a 2 room listed cottage with out a roof and is being let to fall down so it can be pulled down. The other point is some, no lots of the social housing is in such a pore state of repair thay can't look after what they all ready have. Lots have damp, and are out of date but nothing is done. There is no easy fix and buying empty property will not help. And how would manage it and how would be allowed to live In it. 1. Obviously extenuating circumstances. 2. This has been discussed at fair length, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to demolish and rebuild. You can't demolish a listed building it's against the law. So if its worth £500,000 as is and the cost to repair is £1m it just gets left once its un safe you can start to dismantal but if there is asbestos then expensive and if a soil sample shows contamination you can't re build. Listed building can be demolished with consent. The government would be demolishing them so I'm sure they can give themselves consent. Consent is given by English Heritage and on one job i was on it tock 6 months to agree how to repoint the property. ill send you a PM link to a site you can see some of the problems " Listed homes and residential buildings are very rare, | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty Would that include property in probate. I don't think? i can let a property i don't own but have to pay All the bills yes insurance and council tax is reduced as there is no one living there." No, if you legally own the building then you should pay extra council tax | |||
| |||
"That is like theft. You could not do that! That is living with a dictatorship " No it isn’t | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty " This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it." Not the point. It would be state appropriation. | |||
"That is like theft. You could not do that! That is living with a dictatorship No it isn’t "I was on about the original post | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. " So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. | |||
| |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Not the point. It would be state appropriation. " You are aware that the state does have compulsory purchase legislation? | |||
"That is like theft. You could not do that! That is living with a dictatorship No it isn’t
I was on about the original post "The OP was written by myself as a question. Not sure how you deduce theft from it. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Not the point. It would be state appropriation. You are aware that the state does have compulsory purchase legislation?" Well they bloody well shouldn't. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Not the point. It would be state appropriation. You are aware that the state does have compulsory purchase legislation? Well they bloody well shouldn't. " It didn't come from the EU. You said you supported all laws made in this country, and opposed any that we made with the EU. Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. | |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them." Kick the door in and strip it of copper cable and pipe. | |||
"That is like theft. You could not do that! That is living with a dictatorship No it isn’t
I was on about the original post
The OP was written by myself as a question. Not sure how you deduce theft from it."Did you look at the site I sent you a link to. | |||
"That is like theft. You could not do that! That is living with a dictatorship No it isn’t
I was on about the original post
The OP was written by myself as a question. Not sure how you deduce theft from it.
Did you look at the site I sent you a link to."I looked at it. Was an article for an empty mill. | |||
"If you're worried about what it would cost the public purse why not change the Squatting laws back to what it was before 2012 when squatting in the UK was not illegal in itself, but it was a civil matter rather than a criminal offence. This means that if a property owner discovered that someone was living in their property without permission, they would have to go through the civil courts to evict them. However, squatting in a residential property became a criminal offence in England and Wales under section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This made it a criminal offence to enter and live in a residential property without the owner's permission, and the penalty for doing so could be a fine, imprisonment, or both. The law did not apply to commercial properties. Anybody remembers back in the good or old days depending on your point of view, when squatters had rights even when they were squatting in houses when the owners were simply away on a fortnights holiday. "I would kind of agree but. How pays for damage and services used and how would said people know if its long term empty undergoing planing. Or tied up in probate. No if someone ownes the property you have no right to enter it. Squatting can make it take longer to sell property so pointless. | |||
"That is like theft. You could not do that! That is living with a dictatorship No it isn’t
I was on about the original post
The OP was written by myself as a question. Not sure how you deduce theft from it.
Did you look at the site I sent you a link to.
I looked at it. Was an article for an empty mill."Yer been empty for 19 years and the coast to flattern and prep for housing is estimated at 10 billion guess the government could have it | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Not the point. It would be state appropriation. You are aware that the state does have compulsory purchase legislation? Well they bloody well shouldn't. " Well they do, nothing you can do about it | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase." Immediately, | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Immediately, " So you want to stop development of in habitable property how would that help. | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Immediately, So you want to stop development of in habitable property how would that help." Why did you buy a property that didn’t have planning? | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Immediately, So you want to stop development of in habitable property how would that help. Why did you buy a property that didn’t have planning? " I wanted to change use and layout. You can submit plans and the council can take years to get planing and approval sorted. | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Immediately, So you want to stop development of in habitable property how would that help. Why did you buy a property that didn’t have planning? I wanted to change use and layout. You can submit plans and the council can take years to get planing and approval sorted. " Permitted development takes weeks, you should have done your due diligence , harsh but true | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Immediately, " Not immediately imo. Property that has been empty for some time with nothing happening, essentially derelict. | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Immediately, So you want to stop development of in habitable property how would that help. Why did you buy a property that didn’t have planning? I wanted to change use and layout. You can submit plans and the council can take years to get planing and approval sorted. Permitted development takes weeks, you should have done your due diligence , harsh but true " Got permitted development. Then done full plans that got turned down buy English Heritage as a town center property. So resermiteted in the end 3 times still made profit but if I new I had to pay 2 x council tax from day 1 would not take the risk. To be honest doing less now just because of the interest rats and the falling price of property so more will not get developed. And this was all over the roof tiles I wanted to use new that look old. Heritage wanted old reclaimed the property up the road was done with new old looking tiles. Just depends how you get from English Heritage. It's down to the individual. | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase." Why would you buy a property that would likely be turned down for development and if it’s a business thats on you not the council . Why should anyone take your risk? | |||
| |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Immediately, So you want to stop development of in habitable property how would that help. Why did you buy a property that didn’t have planning? I wanted to change use and layout. You can submit plans and the council can take years to get planing and approval sorted. Permitted development takes weeks, you should have done your due diligence , harsh but true Got permitted development. Then done full plans that got turned down buy English Heritage as a town center property. So resermiteted in the end 3 times still made profit but if I new I had to pay 2 x council tax from day 1 would not take the risk. To be honest doing less now just because of the interest rats and the falling price of property so more will not get developed. And this was all over the roof tiles I wanted to use new that look old. Heritage wanted old reclaimed the property up the road was done with new old looking tiles. Just depends how you get from English Heritage. It's down to the individual." Fair enough. | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Why would you buy a property that would likely be turned down for development and if it’s a business thats on you not the council . Why should anyone take your risk? " Property development is part of what I do to make money. So would people rather just see property not improved. | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Immediately, So you want to stop development of in habitable property how would that help. Why did you buy a property that didn’t have planning? I wanted to change use and layout. You can submit plans and the council can take years to get planing and approval sorted. Permitted development takes weeks, you should have done your due diligence , harsh but true Got permitted development. Then done full plans that got turned down buy English Heritage as a town center property. So resermiteted in the end 3 times still made profit but if I new I had to pay 2 x council tax from day 1 would not take the risk. To be honest doing less now just because of the interest rats and the falling price of property so more will not get developed. And this was all over the roof tiles I wanted to use new that look old. Heritage wanted old reclaimed the property up the road was done with new old looking tiles. Just depends how you get from English Heritage. It's down to the individual. Fair enough. "Thank you it's so complex. | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Why would you buy a property that would likely be turned down for development and if it’s a business thats on you not the council . Why should anyone take your risk? Property development is part of what I do to make money. So would people rather just see property not improved. " So do I, and it’s getting harder and harder to make a profit but the days of making a fortune by flipping a house are gone | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Why would you buy a property that would likely be turned down for development and if it’s a business thats on you not the council . Why should anyone take your risk? Property development is part of what I do to make money. So would people rather just see property not improved. " just take some of the roof of problem solved no fees as classed as uninhabitable | |||
| |||
| |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Not the point. It would be state appropriation. You are aware that the state does have compulsory purchase legislation? Well they bloody well shouldn't. It didn't come from the EU. You said you supported all laws made in this country, and opposed any that we made with the EU. Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. " Show me where I said I supported ALL laws made in the uk? I said we should be governed by our laws made ntnour elected politicians. Stop waffling and accusing me of things I didn't say you fuckwit. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Not the point. It would be state appropriation. You are aware that the state does have compulsory purchase legislation? Well they bloody well shouldn't. Well they do, nothing you can do about it "We could vote for a party that wanted to change it. Duhhhh!!! | |||
" you fuckwit. " Oh dear. If you can't make your points without moronic insults maybe you should take a minute and think before posting in the forums. | |||
" you fuckwit. Oh dear. If you can't make your points without moronic insults maybe you should take a minute and think before posting in the forums. " Show me where I said I supported all laws made in the uk you fuckin twat. Come in you ring piece. | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Not the point. It would be state appropriation. You are aware that the state does have compulsory purchase legislation? Well they bloody well shouldn't. Well they do, nothing you can do about it
We could vote for a party that wanted to change it. Duhhhh!!!"You are barking up the wrong tree on this one, simply look at HS2 | |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Not the point. It would be state appropriation. You are aware that the state does have compulsory purchase legislation?" Compulsory purchase has some tight limits to it though I think, like for infrastructure etc, can’t be used to randomly buy private dwellings for housing projects. | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Why would you buy a property that would likely be turned down for development and if it’s a business thats on you not the council . Why should anyone take your risk? Property development is part of what I do to make money. So would people rather just see property not improved. just take some of the roof of problem solved no fees as classed as uninhabitable " Yer but people are saying if empty you would still pay twice the rates lol | |||
" you fuckin twat. Come in you ring piece. " It would be a more productive conversation if you managed to avoid insults, and concentrated on the subject matter. | |||
| |||
"Yip if it is private it's not the states. Leave it alone. If its sitting empty and has been for years though. The state would pay for it, they're not just taking it. Not the point. It would be state appropriation. You are aware that the state does have compulsory purchase legislation? Compulsory purchase has some tight limits to it though I think, like for infrastructure etc, can’t be used to randomly buy private dwellings for housing projects. " It can't. But I think the theme of the thread is what could be done about the empty houses. | |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? " None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. | |||
" you fuckin twat. Come in you ring piece. It would be a more productive conversation if you managed to avoid insults, and concentrated on the subject matter. " Don't know how added the negative twat ring piece comments as cccaant find them pointless. | |||
| |||
" you fuckin twat. Come in you ring piece. It would be a more productive conversation if you managed to avoid insults, and concentrated on the subject matter. Don't know how added the negative twat ring piece comments as cccaant find them pointless." Come again? | |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting." That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils have land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all | |||
"Not read beyond maybe opening third of this thread (bloomin’ long ‘un this) but just the amount of barriers being raised brings into sharp focus (to me) the lack of foresight of the Thatcher Govt for allowing council tenants the “right to buy” and then subsequently not fully replenishing the social housing stock that was sold off! People like me have admittedly benefitted greatly from house price increases driven by shortage of supply, but I do not think that would have been hugely impacted by more social housing? I'm actually for right to buy. The real fuck up was not replenishing stock. Who the fuck sells everything and then doesn't restock? Unless you're closing the business down." Simple math if you sell a council property at 50% discount as the right to buy gives if you have been in the property long-term you can't build one for 50% of the cost of building a new home and if you sell of lots witch they did you are where you are. 24 years ago I was given 15k buy th council to move out of a council house. Now that makes sense as you could not build a house for that money even back then. But it got me on the private ladder. | |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils have land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all " That sounds great , just can't see it happening without massive funding, would take a radical shift in thinking , councils prioritise funding as it is,l'm not going to go into where the money goes but l cant see housing getting the lions share. | |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils have land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all " But again government don't run or own the housing association do and they don't have a pot to wee in. Government rely on privet builders having to build a % for social housing but most will build 400 houses and 2 blocks of 20 flats and that is fro. Experience. It needs a radical replan. Is the costing the same across the UK £120k £140k | |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils have land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all That sounds great , just can't see it happening without massive funding, would take a radical shift in thinking , councils prioritise funding as it is,l'm not going to go into where the money goes but l cant see housing getting the lions share." Nor can I just looked at the data base for HASTINGS 3000 houses over 60 years old so would only need about half a billion to a billion if you flatern and re build most of what I'm talking about still have Bathrooms down stairs and only 1 door between kitchen and bathroom, most have a single power point in each bedroom so very basic | |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils have land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all That sounds great , just can't see it happening without massive funding, would take a radical shift in thinking , councils prioritise funding as it is,l'm not going to go into where the money goes but l cant see housing getting the lions share. Nor can I just looked at the data base for HASTINGS 3000 houses over 60 years old so would only need about half a billion to a billion if you flatern and re build most of what I'm talking about still have Bathrooms down stairs and only 1 door between kitchen and bathroom, most have a single power point in each bedroom so very basic " Can't see private sector builders making a dent , schemes in the past not always beneficial, costs are huge ,demand ever increasing. At the scale these grand plans are ,not sure if there are big enough enterprises to tackle it without massive investment . | |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils own land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all But again government don't run or own the housing association do and they don't have a pot to wee in. Government rely on privet builders having to build a % for social housing but most will build 400 houses and 2 blocks of 20 flats and that is fro. Experience. It needs a radical replan. Is the costing the same across the UK £120k £140k" You are correct, the need for social housing has landed with private developers to provide, in most cases. This in my opinion is not the right way, it creates a % of housing that will be shoehorned into plans and it also creates a problem with the demographic. That is what we have now, and what we have now is not meeting the needs of thousands of people who are in need of housing. To make a difference we can change how the model works today, as it is simply not working or we can do nothing. Doing nothing lines the pockets of B&B's, low grade rentals and increases the costs to benefits for individuals having to be supported in make to do housing. Cut the out the temporary fix and introduce new standards of living through purpose built properties that have modern and efficient heating, living spaces that work for 2023 and 2033. I believe this investment will pay for itself. Vote me  | |||
| |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils own land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all But again government don't run or own the housing association do and they don't have a pot to wee in. Government rely on privet builders having to build a % for social housing but most will build 400 houses and 2 blocks of 20 flats and that is fro. Experience. It needs a radical replan. Is the costing the same across the UK £120k £140k You are correct, the need for social housing has landed with private developers to provide, in most cases. This in my opinion is not the right way, it creates a % of housing that will be shoehorned into plans and it also creates a problem with the demographic. That is what we have now, and what we have now is not meeting the needs of thousands of people who are in need of housing. To make a difference we can change how the model works today, as it is simply not working or we can do nothing. Doing nothing lines the pockets of B&B's, low grade rentals and increases the costs to benefits for individuals having to be supported in make to do housing. Cut the out the temporary fix and introduce new standards of living through purpose built properties that have modern and efficient heating, living spaces that work for 2023 and 2033. I believe this investment will pay for itself. Vote me "Do you no I think on this we agree. I do electrical installation condition reports for social housing So I see it first hand and see the damp and decaying property. The average age is well to old and not fit to live in. In the 70s we had slum clearance we need it again. With better use of the land cleared. | |||
"Any builder l ever worked for never wanted to knock down a property to rebuild,unless the land was very desirable ,they want empty plots with good links to infrastructure etc. How to get the big players on board with the ideal plans suggested here seems impossible without futureproof profit, without massive government funding and a radical change in policy it won't happen lmo" That is my main point, we remove the profit from developers and move it back into government control. Taking ownership of the cost and development will reduce the high rents and benefit payments that everyone contributes too and the very few prosper from. Paying top money for a house that needs constant heating to keep it warm and not damp, endless repairs and is not fit to live in needs to stop, it costs too much money. | |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils own land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all But again government don't run or own the housing association do and they don't have a pot to wee in. Government rely on privet builders having to build a % for social housing but most will build 400 houses and 2 blocks of 20 flats and that is fro. Experience. It needs a radical replan. Is the costing the same across the UK £120k £140k You are correct, the need for social housing has landed with private developers to provide, in most cases. This in my opinion is not the right way, it creates a % of housing that will be shoehorned into plans and it also creates a problem with the demographic. That is what we have now, and what we have now is not meeting the needs of thousands of people who are in need of housing. To make a difference we can change how the model works today, as it is simply not working or we can do nothing. Doing nothing lines the pockets of B&B's, low grade rentals and increases the costs to benefits for individuals having to be supported in make to do housing. Cut the out the temporary fix and introduce new standards of living through purpose built properties that have modern and efficient heating, living spaces that work for 2023 and 2033. I believe this investment will pay for itself. Vote me
Do you no I think on this we agree.
I do electrical installation condition reports for social housing So I see it first hand and see the damp and decaying property. The average age is well to old and not fit to live in.
In the 70s we had slum clearance we need it again. With better use of the land cleared.
" | |||
"Any builder l ever worked for never wanted to knock down a property to rebuild,unless the land was very desirable ,they want empty plots with good links to infrastructure etc. How to get the big players on board with the ideal plans suggested here seems impossible without futureproof profit, without massive government funding and a radical change in policy it won't happen lmo" Agree but if you can flatern 4 properties and build 8 the rent in crease should be enough for housing association but they just don't have e the capital maybe its time to say to new builders if you don't want to do you % of social housing we will expect a 10% levey to reinvest in this old building stock but it will need to be flattered and started again. I would guess 10% have a fan in a bathroom most have an airing cupboard but have a combination boiler massive kitchen and a dining room, sealed of fire place. All wasting space. | |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them." Have you seen what you started.. | |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils own land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all But again government don't run or own the housing association do and they don't have a pot to wee in. Government rely on privet builders having to build a % for social housing but most will build 400 houses and 2 blocks of 20 flats and that is fro. Experience. It needs a radical replan. Is the costing the same across the UK £120k £140k You are correct, the need for social housing has landed with private developers to provide, in most cases. This in my opinion is not the right way, it creates a % of housing that will be shoehorned into plans and it also creates a problem with the demographic. That is what we have now, and what we have now is not meeting the needs of thousands of people who are in need of housing. To make a difference we can change how the model works today, as it is simply not working or we can do nothing. Doing nothing lines the pockets of B&B's, low grade rentals and increases the costs to benefits for individuals having to be supported in make to do housing. Cut the out the temporary fix and introduce new standards of living through purpose built properties that have modern and efficient heating, living spaces that work for 2023 and 2033. I believe this investment will pay for itself. Vote me
Do you no I think on this we agree.
I do electrical installation condition reports for social housing So I see it first hand and see the damp and decaying property. The average age is well to old and not fit to live in.
In the 70s we had slum clearance we need it again. With better use of the land cleared.
"I'm reminded here of all the spin we were subjected to in all the political broadcasts from years ago. Everyone will agree we need change but it wont be delivered if things dont alter, builders,planners,architects ,roadbuilders, tradespersons etc would be happy to get the job done. Look around any new supermarket, brand new housing developments on greenbelt, leaving derelict sights like old railway buildings etc standing rotting ,some for decades.No one wants to touch them ,bound to be riddled with asbestos, everything got to reclaimed to 98%. Gonna take some tough love to sort this one out | |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils own land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all But again government don't run or own the housing association do and they don't have a pot to wee in. Government rely on privet builders having to build a % for social housing but most will build 400 houses and 2 blocks of 20 flats and that is fro. Experience. It needs a radical replan. Is the costing the same across the UK £120k £140k You are correct, the need for social housing has landed with private developers to provide, in most cases. This in my opinion is not the right way, it creates a % of housing that will be shoehorned into plans and it also creates a problem with the demographic. That is what we have now, and what we have now is not meeting the needs of thousands of people who are in need of housing. To make a difference we can change how the model works today, as it is simply not working or we can do nothing. Doing nothing lines the pockets of B&B's, low grade rentals and increases the costs to benefits for individuals having to be supported in make to do housing. Cut the out the temporary fix and introduce new standards of living through purpose built properties that have modern and efficient heating, living spaces that work for 2023 and 2033. I believe this investment will pay for itself. Vote me "Depending on where you live. I live in an area that from when I was a teenager , would not recognise now. The amount of houses/ apartments built has been thousands. Yet more still needed. Prices for houses are above national average. Because just outside London with road links . Has become cheaper place to buy etc. Houses near me have been sold and due to land on turned into apartments ( flats) . Trying to update old type say terraced houses / road that are empty . I think would be to costly to bring up to legal requirements for new properties to rent for councils. As in another thread. If possible to do , how would car charging be done. As no off road parking . Also what type of heating ?. | |||
| |||
"The average 3 bed house size is approx 88sqm. Cost to build is approx £1400 - £1700 per sqm. Putting a finger in the air, a 3 bed house could be built for 120K - 150K, 2 bed 80k - 110K. Energy efficiency benefits, lifespan positive, total control of design and fit, significantly less maintenance costs and the ability to create a residential area that is modern and designed for the community such as play areas, walks and amenities. The question I have, what are the benefits of empty accommodation that would out weigh a new build for increasing the social housing stock? None but down in sussex it goes not work like that. Optivo Now Southern Housing sells property so it can maintain existing stock no real developments are done out side privet construction where they have to provide a % of social housing So you see 2 blocks of flats and a field full of posh houses. The old 1960 built houses stay the same cold damp properties. The gardens are generally to big for the old or young modern working families. And just need to be flattered and the land redeveloped. But where is that £120-£150 coming from. As the housing association are nonprofit making and the government is skint can't even give nurses a pay rise. Some blocks where built In the 70s to last 20 years no joke it won't be long and they won't have to knock them down they are rotting. That is my point, the social housing stock is out of date, built with no understanding of the modern world and does not offer benefit to the community that live in them. The cost to build a house is known, and I put the numbers above 1400 - 1700 Per square meter. The councils own land and the resource to provide architectural changes to living environments that can make a difference. It takes some councils, most, to pool resource and produce a plan that prosper them all But again government don't run or own the housing association do and they don't have a pot to wee in. Government rely on privet builders having to build a % for social housing but most will build 400 houses and 2 blocks of 20 flats and that is fro. Experience. It needs a radical replan. Is the costing the same across the UK £120k £140k You are correct, the need for social housing has landed with private developers to provide, in most cases. This in my opinion is not the right way, it creates a % of housing that will be shoehorned into plans and it also creates a problem with the demographic. That is what we have now, and what we have now is not meeting the needs of thousands of people who are in need of housing. To make a difference we can change how the model works today, as it is simply not working or we can do nothing. Doing nothing lines the pockets of B&B's, low grade rentals and increases the costs to benefits for individuals having to be supported in make to do housing. Cut the out the temporary fix and introduce new standards of living through purpose built properties that have modern and efficient heating, living spaces that work for 2023 and 2033. I believe this investment will pay for itself. Vote me
Depending on where you live. I live in an area that from when I was a teenager , would not recognise now. The amount of houses/ apartments built has been thousands. Yet more still needed. Prices for houses are above national average. Because just outside London with road links . Has become cheaper place to buy etc. Houses near me have been sold and due to land on turned into apartments ( flats) . Trying to update old type say terraced houses / road that are empty . I think would be to costly to bring up to legal requirements for new properties to rent for councils.
As in another thread. If possible to do , how would car charging be done. As no off road parking . Also what type of heating ?."I think we are agreeing The cost of a developer doing this work would be huge, bring it back to council / government control and you remove trying to turn a 500k house into 3 tiny flats that are not fit for purpose, but still being subsidised for people who need social housing.
That 500k can build approx 3, 3 bedroom houses, modern and made for purpose as you mention.
| |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Why would you buy a property that would likely be turned down for development and if it’s a business thats on you not the council . Why should anyone take your risk? Property development is part of what I do to make money. So would people rather just see property not improved. " Hey you chose how to make money. You’re not being forced into it. If you leave a house empty for a period or I have to refurbish it then that’s part of your business costs. So your argument is related to how rules relate to how you run your business not the need to use empty houses. . | |||
| |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Why would you buy a property that would likely be turned down for development and if it’s a business thats on you not the council . Why should anyone take your risk? Property development is part of what I do to make money. So would people rather just see property not improved. Hey you chose how to make money. You’re not being forced into it. If you leave a house empty for a period or I have to refurbish it then that’s part of your business costs. So your argument is related to how rules relate to how you run your business not the need to use empty houses. . " Yes on the last project we made £20k after costs and tax add council tax and or rates it's not viable to anyone so would just sit unoccupied. Don't think anyone wants more vacant property. No profit no improvement simple. Or do you work for no profit. | |||
"I agree to this post as a persons right to do what they want with their property is their business,though a homeless family would see it differently. Reminds when big supermarket chains were buying up vast tracts of land and then sitting on it for years so no other chain could build on it. Think that practice has been stopped now.The amount of brown land available for housing is plentiful,just need the means to clear it . Another block on big development is local councils insisting that roads and infrastructure are built before houses, one scheme in the midlands has been stymied 'cos the developers want to cut back on promised library,school ,medical to cover cost of road . So at the moment no one wins ." Just tried to PM details of a site but I can't and for security reasons I cannot put it on this site there is brown field land but its just not cost effective. | |||
"I agree to this post as a persons right to do what they want with their property is their business,though a homeless family would see it differently. Reminds when big supermarket chains were buying up vast tracts of land and then sitting on it for years so no other chain could build on it. Think that practice has been stopped now.The amount of brown land available for housing is plentiful,just need the means to clear it . Another block on big development is local councils insisting that roads and infrastructure are built before houses, one scheme in the midlands has been stymied 'cos the developers want to cut back on promised library,school ,medical to cover cost of road . So at the moment no one wins ." You saying that reminds me water boards don't have a say in building. UKPN electric can turn you down or imposed higher costs as can centria but water and waste water is not a concern. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The one lm on about is green belt ,massive development, must be farmers sick of poor return on yield ,bovian or bird flu ,whatever,or just want the money to retire, is it easier to work the land or sell it to developers" Yer sell it and it so much cheaper to develop on green land but they will have to supply a % of social housing not always on the same site just my the same developer | |||
"I think someone at the very top who is gonna wear a fancy hat soon owns loads of land round there so maybe that could be it lol" Land banking is still a thing for the big developers they have to start but that might just be putting a digger on the land or a welfare unit fence it of for wieledlife protection. | |||
"Increase the council tax on empty properties to a level that would force any sane person to rent out or sell it. Double it for every year it’s left empty This policy is being used by some councils in Scotland If you leave a house empty for over a year your council tax is doubled . This leads to the property either being rented or put up for sale or the owner stumps the extra council tax which is a positive for the area. I agree increase it but not more than three times as that will be too much for the lower level investors if they can’t sell. The increase pushes for action. If it’s a mansion and not being used then the owners must take action. Less valuable properties will enter the market quicker through selling or rental. The fact that the major developers want to keep a house shortage to keep land prices high shows government policy must be to force councils to build faster but provide suitable funding for that building. It’s a disgrace that we have so much empty property alongside such unacceptable levels of homeless. So if I buy a property to develop and pevlopment gets turned down at what point would you inforce this tax increase. Why would you buy a property that would likely be turned down for development and if it’s a business thats on you not the council . Why should anyone take your risk? Property development is part of what I do to make money. So would people rather just see property not improved. Hey you chose how to make money. You’re not being forced into it. If you leave a house empty for a period or I have to refurbish it then that’s part of your business costs. So your argument is related to how rules relate to how you run your business not the need to use empty houses. . Yes on the last project we made £20k after costs and tax add council tax and or rates it's not viable to anyone so would just sit unoccupied. Don't think anyone wants more vacant property. No profit no improvement simple. Or do you work for no profit." You re-evaluate what you do to make money. Housing associations exist to provide homes and can be non profit. Being in the private sector is a risk you can chose to take or not. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Sorry don't get your point Housing association can't afford to look after what they have let alone do more. My main job is doing DEICR on social housing when there we change smoke alarms if out of date. But we ae not doing smoke alarms at the moment as the budget has run out till 5th of April so if there is no smoke alarm in the property that's how it's left. No to me that is not legal but if they can't afford it then lives will be at risk till thay have the money." I’m not defending or promoting housing associations. Their legal compliance is a whole new subject. I’m making the point that you chose to be in business of making money on flipping houses. I own residential properties to hopefully turn a long term profit. If the council decide to double my council tax for an empty property (they have in the past) then that’s part of my businesses challenge. Complaining you make less money flipping or refurbishing or I eat into my rental revenue is our problem not theirs. The councils involved with me gave me a years grace before I had to pay double. They don’t want empty houses. It devalues and degrades an area but they are also losing tax by it standing empty. You being forced to pay more will either make you work quicker or not get involved or in fact just charge more. If you think it through logically if there are other empty properties around yours will it be worth more or less? The point is houses shouldn’t be empty when we have homeless not how you earn a living. No disrespect to you personally. It’s good you’re prepared to graft. | |||
"Sorry don't get your point Housing association can't afford to look after what they have let alone do more. My main job is doing DEICR on social housing when there we change smoke alarms if out of date. But we ae not doing smoke alarms at the moment as the budget has run out till 5th of April so if there is no smoke alarm in the property that's how it's left. No to me that is not legal but if they can't afford it then lives will be at risk till thay have the money. I’m not defending or promoting housing associations. Their legal compliance is a whole new subject. I’m making the point that you chose to be in business of making money on flipping houses. I own residential properties to hopefully turn a long term profit. If the council decide to double my council tax for an empty property (they have in the past) then that’s part of my businesses challenge. Complaining you make less money flipping or refurbishing or I eat into my rental revenue is our problem not theirs. The councils involved with me gave me a years grace before I had to pay double. They don’t want empty houses. It devalues and degrades an area but they are also losing tax by it standing empty. You being forced to pay more will either make you work quicker or not get involved or in fact just charge more. If you think it through logically if there are other empty properties around yours will it be worth more or less? The point is houses shouldn’t be empty when we have homeless not how you earn a living. No disrespect to you personally. It’s good you’re prepared to graft. " But when it's the council holding up work or English Heritage. I do one evert 2 to 3 years not done a property since 2019 as it was so painful as it was due to English Heritage if they drag there heals should you be penalised. I have looked at 2 buildings but I know it will be the same so can't be bothered. 2 hase been empty since I looked at it before lockdown how can that help. Homeless people. To much red tape | |||
| |||
"Sorry don't get your point Housing association can't afford to look after what they have let alone do more. My main job is doing DEICR on social housing when there we change smoke alarms if out of date. But we ae not doing smoke alarms at the moment as the budget has run out till 5th of April so if there is no smoke alarm in the property that's how it's left. No to me that is not legal but if they can't afford it then lives will be at risk till thay have the money. I’m not defending or promoting housing associations. Their legal compliance is a whole new subject. I’m making the point that you chose to be in business of making money on flipping houses. I own residential properties to hopefully turn a long term profit. If the council decide to double my council tax for an empty property (they have in the past) then that’s part of my businesses challenge. Complaining you make less money flipping or refurbishing or I eat into my rental revenue is our problem not theirs. The councils involved with me gave me a years grace before I had to pay double. They don’t want empty houses. It devalues and degrades an area but they are also losing tax by it standing empty. You being forced to pay more will either make you work quicker or not get involved or in fact just charge more. If you think it through logically if there are other empty properties around yours will it be worth more or less? The point is houses shouldn’t be empty when we have homeless not how you earn a living. No disrespect to you personally. It’s good you’re prepared to graft. But when it's the council holding up work or English Heritage. I do one evert 2 to 3 years not done a property since 2019 as it was so painful as it was due to English Heritage if they drag there heals should you be penalised. I have looked at 2 buildings but I know it will be the same so can't be bothered. 2 hase been empty since I looked at it before lockdown how can that help. Homeless people. To much red tape " Honestly, I have no real answer for you. Perhaps you’re highlighting something which has always been intrinsically wrong in our planning. It takes far too long for houses to be built due to Nimbys etc but it’s the actual system which is so chronic. In turn refurbs are delayed. From an incompetence failure point. I’ve been involved with a large industrial project with two years detailed development jointly with a council only to discover the council had the zoning incorrect for half the site. Result, the creation of an endless time frame so project shelved for now. Our planning laws are too out of date and definitely not fit for purpose. I agree with you there. I do not however agree with the bullying development process the tories hinted at. It needs speeding up not turning into a monster. | |||
| |||
"Business property planning needs to be separated from residential property planning. Planning just takes far too long. Developers need to stop taking the piss. Two local developments. One got planning consent on a certain percentage of social housing being built. Within weeks of consent being given, the developer reined back on the social housing side, citing cost implications. Nothing was done. The other development required the developer building a bridge over a railway. Badly needed to make the infrastructure work. Because a new bypass was planned for the other side of town, he is trying to get out of building that bridge. Councils should not allow a single house foundation to be put down until the infrastructure is in place. I see too many estates, where houses have been built and roads not finished off. " Agree with this. | |||
"Business property planning needs to be separated from residential property planning. Planning just takes far too long. Developers need to stop taking the piss. Two local developments. One got planning consent on a certain percentage of social housing being built. Within weeks of consent being given, the developer reined back on the social housing side, citing cost implications. Nothing was done. The other development required the developer building a bridge over a railway. Badly needed to make the infrastructure work. Because a new bypass was planned for the other side of town, he is trying to get out of building that bridge. Councils should not allow a single house foundation to be put down until the infrastructure is in place. I see too many estates, where houses have been built and roads not finished off. " The roads not finished off are usually a type of service road, they can't take heavy plant down the finished roads. If the site is complete, then that is just bad practice. | |||
"Business property planning needs to be separated from residential property planning. Planning just takes far too long. Developers need to stop taking the piss. Two local developments. One got planning consent on a certain percentage of social housing being built. Within weeks of consent being given, the developer reined back on the social housing side, citing cost implications. Nothing was done. The other development required the developer building a bridge over a railway. Badly needed to make the infrastructure work. Because a new bypass was planned for the other side of town, he is trying to get out of building that bridge. Councils should not allow a single house foundation to be put down until the infrastructure is in place. I see too many estates, where houses have been built and roads not finished off. The roads not finished off are usually a type of service road, they can't take heavy plant down the finished roads. If the site is complete, then that is just bad practice. " In the case lm on about in nottm ,massive roundabouts, service roads into shops ,surguries etc is the sticking point ,got to put them before housing | |||
"Business property planning needs to be separated from residential property planning. Planning just takes far too long. Developers need to stop taking the piss. Two local developments. One got planning consent on a certain percentage of social housing being built. Within weeks of consent being given, the developer reined back on the social housing side, citing cost implications. Nothing was done. The other development required the developer building a bridge over a railway. Badly needed to make the infrastructure work. Because a new bypass was planned for the other side of town, he is trying to get out of building that bridge. Councils should not allow a single house foundation to be put down until the infrastructure is in place. I see too many estates, where houses have been built and roads not finished off. The roads not finished off are usually a type of service road, they can't take heavy plant down the finished roads. If the site is complete, then that is just bad practice. In the case lm on about in nottm ,massive roundabouts, service roads into shops ,surguries etc is the sticking point ,got to put them before housing" Local councils see developers as a sliver bullet in many circumstances. What they seem to forget is the funding needed to get the developments off the ground to start with and how the funding needs to happen during the build phases. Ground work is expensive, roads are expensive, putting them in with no houses being built to sell is a drain on finances, not to mention the upkeep of the roads if they want them finalised. Councils need property affordable housing, schools and amenities, developers can and are delivering this, but if certain councils start adding more demands for land, the developers will walk away and find a council who is willing to be reasonable. | |||
"Business property planning needs to be separated from residential property planning. Planning just takes far too long. Developers need to stop taking the piss. Two local developments. One got planning consent on a certain percentage of social housing being built. Within weeks of consent being given, the developer reined back on the social housing side, citing cost implications. Nothing was done. The other development required the developer building a bridge over a railway. Badly needed to make the infrastructure work. Because a new bypass was planned for the other side of town, he is trying to get out of building that bridge. Councils should not allow a single house foundation to be put down until the infrastructure is in place. I see too many estates, where houses have been built and roads not finished off. " Down south they have to do the road first not the top coat 20mm but all the ground work up to the last 50mm deep. All the gas electric water etc all go in first | |||
| |||
"As a follow on from a previous post. What can we do about the vast amount of empty residential properties in this country? Even commercial, if we could convert them." There’s a book called “too big to fail” by Andrew Ross sorkin, a journalist for CNBC, about the mortgage crisis He writes about a “thought experiment” at the time which was discussed. What would happen if they simply burned down all of the repossessed homes? How would it affect supply and demand If more people want homes than there are homes available to buy, the sale value of the homes go back up Of course, they never burned places down, but it’s pretty clear to me that they realised that keeping homes empty and off of the market allows them to increase and decrease prices like turning a tap off and on | |||
