1. Welcome to the new B.I.R.D. Forum. Please be sure to read the "New Member / New Registered ? Please Read" thread in the Coffee Shop. This contains some important information. I hope you enjoy the new site ................ Jaws ( John )
    Dismiss Notice

Bad luck or bad timing?

Discussion in 'Coffee Shop' started by derek kelly, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:19 AM.

  1. Duck n Dive

    Duck n Dive Rebel without a clue ... Club Sponsor

    A few years ago there was an attempt to build on farm land opposite the entrance to our little estate.
    It's mostly farms plus a riding school at the moment.
    The fields involved are not identified on the local plan yet the council wanted to approve it.

    Residents got together and we all chipped into a fund to try and fight it.
    Managed to get it appealed and the funds paid a barrister to represent the residents - we won and the land owner/developer were refused.

    We're under no illusions that we'll have to fight the battle again and again.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. andyBeaker

    andyBeaker Moderator Staff Member Moderator Club Sponsor

    In general it is accepted that separate communities will not be 'joined' in the planning world so separate identities are retained....but, as indicated above, when local authorities are under pressure to meet housing targets anything is possible.

    I was involved in a project some years ago to prevent two villages being joined and happily we were successful. The irony is that deciding the usage of the green strip between the two villages caused nothing but trouble for two or three years, a great opportunity to do something good was turned into a problem by the local residents who were so against housing being built on the land.
    It is a rare thing indeed for any new devopment of any size not to include 'affordable housing', usually an absolute requirement. Not saying it doesn't happen but obtaining planning without it is much more difficult.
     
  3. sr71caspar

    sr71caspar B̶a̶n̶n̶e̶d̶ Club Sponsor

    What is classed as "affordable housing" and what first time buyers can actually afford are shockingly far apart.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. andyBeaker

    andyBeaker Moderator Staff Member Moderator Club Sponsor

    Very large developments are often required to include 'shared ownership' at some level to help get those on the lowest incomes into the market.

    Re first time buyers, I remain to be convinced that it is harder to get on the ladder now than when I bought my first house in 1980. It was flipping hard then, mortgages were much harder to get (many building societies wouldn't even let you apply unless you had saved with them regularly for two years) and interest rates were around 8%/10% ish for years. We saved hard for two years to get a deposit together and went without the expensive wedding, honeymoon in The Maldives and new cars and holidays for quite a few years after buying to pay the mortgage that we could barely afford on our two up two down terrace.

    Maybe what has changed is the level of expectation in society?
     
  5. sr71caspar

    sr71caspar B̶a̶n̶n̶e̶d̶ Club Sponsor

    House prices round here start at around £240k, mortgages used to be based on 3 x joint salary. So first time buyers need a joint salary of £80k.

    The Doris and I barely have a joint salary of £45k.

    You are fucking deluded.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Minkey

    Minkey Ok it was me Club Sponsor

    I live in a village and last year someone wanted to build 13 5 bedroom houses, up until now planning permission has been squashed, if anything we could do with a couple of affordable homes for local kids
     
  7. Pow-Lo

    Pow-Lo I am Grasshopper! Club Sponsor

    They can’t build by me at all. Behind is two houses and in the grounds just behind them runs a mahooosive water pipe that supplies Engerrlund and a little further up the mountain is Pontypridd golf club. There’s houses opposite me and beyond them is the Common and they can’t build there either.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. derek kelly

    derek kelly The Deli lama Club Sponsor

    Why?
     
  9. Pow-Lo

    Pow-Lo I am Grasshopper! Club Sponsor

    It’s much harder to get on the ladder now as first time buyers are required to have much larger deposits than when I bought my first house back in 1993. Also, properties, in general terms, have increased in price/value disproportionately in comparison to salaries.

    I saved like a bastard for years to buy my first house on my own. After an unfortunate sequence of events, I ended up being a first time buyer again in 2001 with The-Artist-Later-To-Be-Known-As-Mrs P.

    When we bought our second house back in 2002, we went to the bank and we were offered a mortgage of up to £330k and we were jointly earning about one sixth of that.

    We did have the honeymoon in the Maldives but we did everything else (apart from the rings and photographer) a lot cheaper than most and saved where we could, which included getting married on a Wednesday. In doing so, we were able to keep money back for the deposit for our second house.

    I’m not sure where your head is at Andrew but lenders used to throw money at people not so long ago but things have tightened up significantly in recent years. We had to jump through hoops to get a mortgage for this place and our credit ratings are way up there; we had to provide proof of our savings with which we were paying for the deposit and the amount we wanted to borrow was less than 3 x our joint incomes.

    Mortgages still are 3 x joint income. First time buyers on the prices you’ve quoted would need a joint salary of about £72k as they be expected to spunk up 10% of the price as a deposit. They’d also need the cash for stamp duty as it can’t be added to the mortgage any more.

    He’s not deluded. He made some fair points, apart from being just as hard to get on the property ladder back then. It wasn’t, it was way easier.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. Pow-Lo

    Pow-Lo I am Grasshopper! Club Sponsor

    There’s a cenotaph-type war memorial there and some historical artefact thingys. In short, it’s ‘protected’ (my words, I’m not sure of the correct term).
     
  11. andyBeaker

    andyBeaker Moderator Staff Member Moderator Club Sponsor

    No need for the rudeness.

    First time buyers do not have to live in an area of £240k houses. Our first place was in an area of 1920s terraces and our second was in an area of three bed semis. Cloth cut to fit.

    My turf is not an area for the vast majority of first time buyers based on values. However, there are plenty of areas in the town centre where prices are lower and as such that is the landing area for first time buyers. There is also newhaven just along the coast, not a particularly nice place in my opinion and house prices reflect this - that is also an area for first time buyers. Move along the coast a bit and you get to Brighton and prices are through the roof = not an area for first time buyers.

    Maybe I was right about 'entitlement'.....
     
  12. andyBeaker

    andyBeaker Moderator Staff Member Moderator Club Sponsor

    "I'm not sure where your head is,, lenders throwing money at borrowers' etc - yes I agree (about the second bit!) - they certainly were not chucking money at borrowers in 1980 (the timeframe specifically mentioned in my post) so I think your comment is not aligned wth my statement.

    Who would have thought it on this forum!

    Either way, I stand by what I said - I don't think it's any harder today than it was when we bought our first place. From memory I would say our combined salaries were around 20% of the value of the property we bought and we saved like mad for two years to scrape a deposit together. Delayed having children until we had been married for eight years as we couldn't afford to have them as the mortgage was so heavy.

    Not looking for sympathy, just saying it as it was. It's tough getting on the property ladder, and it cetrtainly needs working for.
     
  13. Pow-Lo

    Pow-Lo I am Grasshopper! Club Sponsor

    My post wasn’t misaligned with your statement, not deliberately anyway. My first house wasn’t that far behind yours in terms of time frame and I had much less trouble getting a mortgage then than what we did recently. In order not lose this place, we really had to jump through hoops. By the time we’d paid the other mortgage off, paid the deposit on this place and the bastard stamp duty we were well over six figures lighter.

    Things now have tightened up to the point that kids have to prove that their savings are their own and not a bung from their parents.

    You are spot on re entitlement.
     
  14. andyBeaker

    andyBeaker Moderator Staff Member Moderator Club Sponsor

    A good deal of that tightening up is down to money laundering regulations that have made anything financial difficult in recent years - and rightly so.

    Also deregulation of the markets in 1986 ('Big Bang') flooded the financial markets with new players at a time when credit was cheap on the wholesale market thus disrupting the safe and prudent mortgage market - some lenders were offering 110% mortgages to get market share. That was when it started becoming silly easy to get mortgages and other than a few blips that didn't really change until the financial crisis in 2008 when prudence AKA 'common sense' kicked in again.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. derek kelly

    derek kelly The Deli lama Club Sponsor

    Blm will soon get rid of that
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. slim63

    slim63 Never surrender Club Sponsor

    Going from the building in this area at the moment "affordable housing" means financed by housing associations & as such those homes are for rent rather than for sale & even those built on the same estates that are for sale are much posher (read expensive) than the "affordable" ones which leaves first time buyers with nowhere to go

    What I glean from this is that affordable housing is a myth, financers are building them to meet government requirements but most are not for sale as above
     
  17. andyBeaker

    andyBeaker Moderator Staff Member Moderator Club Sponsor

    The water pipe is a good protector from development (as are railways limnes and major roads) but golf courses aren't - they have closed in their droves in the recent past and there have been cases where clubs have specifically closed to be developed for housing (at the end of the day money nearly always talks). My son's house is built on Horsell Common due to a quirk in planning law involving previous usage of the land.

    Nowhere is bulletproof I'm afraid as the spectre of government targets for new housing hangs like a black cloud over every district council.

    Gosh, I seem to have joined the @derek kelly Wet Blanket Society:D
     
  18. andyBeaker

    andyBeaker Moderator Staff Member Moderator Club Sponsor

    You are not wrong but there is also 'shared ownership' in the mix, designed to help those who want to get on the ladder but wouldn't be able,to,do so otherwise. Not saying it is great, but it has helped plenty over the years.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Pow-Lo

    Pow-Lo I am Grasshopper! Club Sponsor

    They tried to build further up the mountain in the past and the water pipe effectively put the blockers on it, so it gonna happen.

    As I said above, I don’t understand the need for developing on new land when there’s plenty of dilapidated areas that can be demolished and re-built.
     
  20. andyBeaker

    andyBeaker Moderator Staff Member Moderator Club Sponsor

    Simple answer - profit!

    Eastbourne has lost two major department stores in the last couple of years, prime town centre locations for redevelopment into flats - which is what the council,want - but the profit just isn't there for developers. A nice piece of flattish ground with nothing on it much more desirable unfortunately.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2

Share This Page