Perhaps "small" is the key word there. We weren't unhappy in a flat at first but when the kids get to toddler age and above a garden makes life much easier. Most parents I know would agree with that. There is also the issue that families with kids tend to be noisy which also makes flats far from ideal from the perspective of the neighbours. You might have a less charitable opinion of your neighbours if you lived below rather than above them. Also given your location and station in life I imagine you are hardly living in a downmarket development....were you living amongst families in a tower block in Dagenham I'm sure you may think differently.
Undoubtedly. For a parent of say 4-14 year olds nothing is more precious than enough garden to put a 14' trampoline in.
Anyone with a trampoline in their garden should be taken out and shot.
Almost as bad as a caravan on the drive.
But not as bad as a Ford Cortina on bricks in the front garden.
And that's not as bad as a union-jack garage door.
Our re-enactment of World War 2 not going well for us i see.
There's always been a contingent of Brexiteers who subconsciously crave the humiliation of defeat at the hands of the EU so that they can then accept our membership as the natural order of things by right of conquest.
The USA has a lot more space than we do. Also, a lot more trailer parks. And a highly restrictive immigration policy. I'm not sure a like-for-like comparison really works.
Additionally, their rate of CGT is 10-20% depending on income and how long you have had the asset for, so much lower than the 28% faced by UK homeowners.
And there is a $250,000 exclusion ($500,000 for couples) on housing.
While I agree with you that something must be done about the housing crisis, imposing a sudden and unexpected 28% on people's primary residence is somewhat courageous, in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word.
It is my belief that such a policy would restrict supply in a way that artificially inflates prices, exacerbating the current situation further.
"Build more houses" would be my first solution to solving the crisis, restricting immigration to sustainable levels would be the second (hint: 250,000 new people per annum is not sustainable when you are only building about 150,000 new houses per year).
Current net new dwellings are running at 217k in 2016-7, which is 45% more than the 150k you mention.
Net new dwellings include the likes of conversions and changes of use. And I think a certain amount of fiddling by Councils who designate rooms-with-a-shower or similar in HMOs as Council Band A units to get the Council Tax and the government incentive payments.
The actual "newbuild" number is 184k, which is 22% above your figure.
Those numbers are for England, so if you add in Wales, Scotland, N Ireland (+22% approx) at the same rate per pop, it puts the UK at 264k net new dwellings. That is quite probably above the 250k, even if WSNI are doing less well.
I think the Tories have this one licked, unless something goes off the rails. They have been chipping away at it for more than 5 years. The question is whether they can get cut-through, and Mrs May being so supine in Parliament will not help.
One problem will be the inability of Mayor Sadiq to get things done.
Annual housing supply in England amounted to 217,350 net additional dwellings in 2016-17, up 15% on 2015-16.
The 217,350 net additions in 2016-17 resulted from 183,570 new build homes, 37,190 gains from change of use between non-domestic and residential, 5,680 from conversions between houses and flats and 720 other gains (caravans, house boats etc.), offset by 9,820 demolitions.
18,887 of the net additions from change of use were through ‘permitted development rights’ (full planning permission not required). These comprised 17,751 additional dwellings from former offices, 330 from agricultural or forestry buildings, 106 from storage buildings and 700 from other non-domestic buildings
The World Trade Organization on Wednesday gave Brazil 90 days to withdraw several industrial stimulus programs, supporting complaints of unfair competition by Japan and the European Union, a decision the government will appeal.
Do you think the WTO rules would prevent us reducing beer duty or cutting vat on home insulation ?
Our re-enactment of World War 2 not going well for us i see.
There's always been a contingent of Brexiteers who subconsciously crave the humiliation of defeat at the hands of the EU so that they can then accept our membership as the natural order of things by right of conquest.
Our re-enactment of World War 2 not going well for us i see.
There's always been a contingent of Brexiteers who subconsciously crave the humiliation of defeat at the hands of the EU so that they can then accept our membership as the natural order of things by right of conquest.
Do you really believe in the rubbish you write
I refer you to the comment from MarqueeMark immediately below yours.
Our re-enactment of World War 2 not going well for us i see.
There's always been a contingent of Brexiteers who subconsciously crave the humiliation of defeat at the hands of the EU so that they can then accept our membership as the natural order of things by right of conquest.
Like so many things, only real in your mind.
'Real in your mind', like the theories you espoused over MH17 ?
Oh, hang on, you were just parroting the Kremin then.
In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000. In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so. In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million. In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million. In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.
Fine, but most of that increase happened before the welfare state. I could have been persuaded to vote stay in the EU had Cameron and Osborne put forward a big scaling back of the welfare state. That is, you can have as much immigration as you like, so long as my taxes aren't spent on housing benefit.
Under your scenario the immigrants would still flood in, but would be living in shanty towns and in shop doorways instead of houses. I'd rather pay housing benefit than have that happen in my country. Rough sleeping is already massively worse than a few years ago, as anyone living/working around London can see on a daily basis.
So we're paying massive housing benefits in London and still have rough sleepers (I wonder why it's increased so much in the last few year's, btw?)
Scrapping housing benefit might solve the housing crisis.
Housing benefit doesn't change the number of dwellings, ceteris paribus withdrawing it completely should make no difference to the overall number of people homed....
In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000. In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so. In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million. In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million. In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.
Fine, but most of that increase happened before the welfare state. I could have been persuaded to vote stay in the EU had Cameron and Osborne put forward a big scaling back of the welfare state. That is, you can have as much immigration as you like, so long as my taxes aren't spent on housing benefit.
Under your scenario the immigrants would still flood in, but would be living in shanty towns and in shop doorways instead of houses. I'd rather pay housing benefit than have that happen in my country. Rough sleeping is already massively worse than a few years ago, as anyone living/working around London can see on a daily basis.
So we're paying massive housing benefits in London and still have rough sleepers (I wonder why it's increased so much in the last few year's, btw?)
Unless you are prepared to see families with children routinely sleeping on the street there is no way around paying housing benefit or providing them with social housing. The current level of rough sleeping partly reflects councils increasingly refusing any responsibility for housing homeless single males. We lack the money, manpower and infrastructure to deport Romanian beggars and I highly doubt Brexit will change that in any way; they prefer to be on the streets of London than Bucharest and annoying as that is, we are stuck with them Brexit or not.
The World Trade Organization on Wednesday gave Brazil 90 days to withdraw several industrial stimulus programs, supporting complaints of unfair competition by Japan and the European Union, a decision the government will appeal.
Do you think the WTO rules would prevent us reducing beer duty or cutting vat on home insulation ?
AIUI WTO duty levels are explicitly defined as maximum levels, so no they should not do so.
Not impressed with the BBC allowing people to claim that the number of people killed at Grenfell Tower was a lot higher than the official figure. If the BBC wants to do a thorough investigation of the claims, and present their findings, then fine. Otherwise, I suggest that STFU.
In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000. In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so. In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million. In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million. In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.
Fine, but most of that increase happened before the welfare state. I could have been persuaded to vote stay in the EU had Cameron and Osborne put forward a big scaling back of the welfare state. That is, you can have as much immigration as you like, so long as my taxes aren't spent on housing benefit.
Under your scenario the immigrants would still flood in, but would be living in shanty towns and in shop doorways instead of houses. I'd rather pay housing benefit than have that happen in my country. Rough sleeping is already massively worse than a few years ago, as anyone living/working around London can see on a daily basis.
So we're paying massive housing benefits in London and still have rough sleepers (I wonder why it's increased so much in the last few year's, btw?)
Scrapping housing benefit might solve the housing crisis.
Housing benefit doesn't change the number of dwellings, ceteris paribus withdrawing it completely should make no difference to the overall number of people homed....
On the contrary it may encourage smaller homes via subdivision so an increase.
For some inexplicable reason I seem to have overlooked subscribing to that particular source. Anything I should know?
You're better off not knowing, it is to do with politics, but not something that should be discussed on a respectable, family friendly website like politicalbetting.com
Penny Mordaunt,s speech? Or George Osborne repeatedly admitting "I'm a c*nt"?
What percentage of Britain do you think is currently built on?
What sort of land are you going to use to build on then?
Farmland? When we already can't grow enough food to support even half our population? Woodland? When we already have one of the lowest rates for woodland cover in Europe (13% compared to an EU average of 39%) Heathland? We have lost 75% of our lowland heaths in the last century. Meadows? We have lost 97% of our meadows since WW2.
When people talk about using more land for housing they seem to think that land is currently unused or that its current use is unimportant. Neither of these is true.
Far better to follow the continental example and increase housing density rather than housing coverage.
In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000. In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so. In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million. In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million. In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.
Fine, but most of that increase happened before the welfare state. I could have been persuaded to vote stay in the EU had Cameron and Osborne put forward a big scaling back of the welfare state. That is, you can have as much immigration as you like, so long as my taxes aren't spent on housing benefit.
Under your scenario the immigrants would still flood in, but would be living in shanty towns and in shop doorways instead of houses. I'd rather pay housing benefit than have that happen in my country. Rough sleeping is already massively worse than a few years ago, as anyone living/working around London can see on a daily basis.
So we're paying massive housing benefits in London and still have rough sleepers (I wonder why it's increased so much in the last few year's, btw?)
Scrapping housing benefit might solve the housing crisis.
Housing benefit doesn't change the number of dwellings, ceteris paribus withdrawing it completely should make no difference to the overall number of people homed....
On the contrary it may encourage smaller homes via subdivision so an increase.
I'll put it forward as a potential policy at conference:)
Current net new dwellings are running at 217k in 2016-7, which is 45% more than the 150k you mention.
Net new dwellings include the likes of conversions and changes of use. And I think a certain amount of fiddling by Councils who designate rooms-with-a-shower or similar in HMOs as Council Band A units to get the Council Tax and the government incentive payments.
The actual "newbuild" number is 184k, which is 22% above your figure.
Those numbers are for England, so if you add in Wales, Scotland, N Ireland (+22% approx) at the same rate per pop, it puts the UK at 264k net new dwellings. That is quite probably above the 250k, even if WSNI are doing less well.
I think the Tories have this one licked, unless something goes off the rails. They have been chipping away at it for more than 5 years. The question is whether they can get cut-through, and Mrs May being so supine in Parliament will not help.
Annual housing supply in England amounted to 217,350 net additional dwellings in 2016-17, up 15% on 2015-16.
The 217,350 net additions in 2016-17 resulted from 183,570 new build homes, 37,190 gains from change of use between non-domestic and residential, 5,680 from conversions between houses and flats and 720 other gains (caravans, house boats etc.), offset by 9,820 demolitions.
18,887 of the net additions from change of use were through ‘permitted development rights’ (full planning permission not required). These comprised 17,751 additional dwellings from former offices, 330 from agricultural or forestry buildings, 106 from storage buildings and 700 from other non-domestic buildings
So we partition off one old house and turn it into three badly converted flats. Bob's your uncle, now you have three dwellings!
Or we build smaller and smaller new build houses (average size of new build in 2017: 76 square metres, the smallest in Europe).
Until eventually we're all living 35 to what used to be a four bedroom house and a "bed in a shed" looks attractive. Soylent Green is people.
Not to mention the lack of building of schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure to keep pace.
Our re-enactment of World War 2 not going well for us i see.
There's always been a contingent of Brexiteers who subconsciously crave the humiliation of defeat at the hands of the EU so that they can then accept our membership as the natural order of things by right of conquest.
Like so many things, only real in your mind.
'Real in your mind', like the theories you espoused over MH17 ?
Oh, hang on, you were just parroting the Kremin then.
No, 'real in your mind' as in the concept of you serving any useful purpose here beyond picking fights and generally being a creepy embarrassment.
Not impressed with the BBC allowing people to claim that the number of people killed at Grenfell Tower was a lot higher than the official figure. If the BBC wants to do a thorough investigation of the claims, and present their findings, then fine. Otherwise, I suggest that STFU.
I understand the Met have announced the final toll including, sadly, a still born baby
The announcement was made after extensive and thorough forensics so the BBC need to stop playing politics with this. We have had enough of that with the odious Dent Coad
Our re-enactment of World War 2 not going well for us i see.
That was what Germany thought in WW2 too....
Last time I looked Germany has no government and are talking of new elections.
Merkel is weaker than May at present, not that I think that is a good thing
A remarkable level of self-delusion. Look at the growth rates between the UK and Germany over the last year. Germany is strong enough to be able to get away with no Government in a way the UK can't.
Our re-enactment of World War 2 not going well for us i see.
That was what Germany thought in WW2 too....
Last time I looked Germany has no government and are talking of new elections.
Merkel is weaker than May at present, not that I think that is a good thing
A remarkable level of self-delusion. Look at the growth rates between the UK and Germany over the last year. Germany is strong enough to be able to get away with no Government in a way the UK can't.
Well that may be the case but Merkel is unable to form a government and is frightened of another election with more Afd gains.
A land value tax levied annually as mentioned in the previous thread is an intresting hypothetical solution, but I suspect it is electoral suicide for any party that suggests it. At least for as long as homeowners outnumber renters.
A rather interesting suggestion (on EdM's podcast) for an initial implementation of LVT is to allow for voluntary valuations.
eg, set the rate at 3%/year - then allow whoever owns the land to value it, annually, at whatever level they want - and then pay 3% of that value.
To disincentivise pisstaking, the government/councils/housing associations etc can purchase the land at the declared value.
Even on a £200k house that would be £6k per year - miles more than Council Tax.
How on earth is someone in a modest (in many parts of the country) £200k house suddenly going to find approx an extra £5k per year?
That's the value of the house
The value of the land is probably about £60k so Pong's tax would be £1,800.
In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000. In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so. In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million. In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million. In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.
Nor do I. However, concern at immigration stretches pretty wide - less so among Remainers than Leavers, obviously, but not non-existent - and public perception drives policy to a large degree.
It's not that surprising when politicians are happy to campaign on xenophobic lies. Those who supported such campaigns can't then pretend that they didn't happen.
As I pointed out many remainers also support restricting immigration, so save the sanctimony. I've always consistently said I don't care about immigration, it's not about ignoring campaigns as I've also spoken out against xenophobic campaigns it's about being honest that most people do think we have had too much immigration, even if you and I disagree. Yes leave voters more than most, on average, but not just them. That's a fact, it isn't just a Leave thing, but your obsession is a classic hammer/nail situation. Everything must fit your world view at all times. As bright as you are you're often right, but no one gets it 100% of the time nor does it make every obsessive utterance correct, particularly when it so clearly fits into a preconceived opinion.
Our re-enactment of World War 2 not going well for us i see.
There's always been a contingent of Brexiteers who subconsciously crave the humiliation of defeat at the hands of the EU so that they can then accept our membership as the natural order of things by right of conquest.
Like so many things, only real in your mind.
'Real in your mind', like the theories you espoused over MH17 ?
Oh, hang on, you were just parroting the Kremin then.
No, 'real in your mind' as in the concept of you serving any useful purpose here beyond picking fights and generally being a creepy embarrassment.
Is that the best you can do? Your posts over MH17 speak for themselves; whatever lines the Kremlin came out with, you parroted.
You should read the Dutch reports and feel embarrassed.
In 5000BC, Britain had a population of maybe 6,000. In 1500AD, England had a population of 2 million or so. In 1801, England had a population of just under 8 million. In 1901, England had a population of just over 30 million. In 2001, England had a population of a touch under 50 million.
I don't see any reason why England is full at its present 55 million or so, any more than it was full at any of those previous dates.
Nor do I. However, concern at immigration stretches pretty wide - less so among Remainers than Leavers, obviously, but not non-existent - and public perception drives policy to a large degree.
It's not that surprising when politicians are happy to campaign on xenophobic lies. Those who supported such campaigns can't then pretend that they didn't happen.
As I pointes out many remainers also support restricting immigration, so save the sanctimony. I've always consistently said I don't care about immigration, it's not about ignoring campaigns, it's about being honest that most people do think we have had too much immigration, even if you and I disagree.
You can't just magic away xenophobic lies as if they didn't matter. I appreciate that many Leavers realise just how disgracefully they behaved by being complicit in them but the country can't move on until those lies are confronted and faced down.
Not impressed with the BBC allowing people to claim that the number of people killed at Grenfell Tower was a lot higher than the official figure. If the BBC wants to do a thorough investigation of the claims, and present their findings, then fine. Otherwise, I suggest that STFU.
I understand the Met have announced the final toll including, sadly, a still born baby
The announcement was made after extensive and thorough forensics so the BBC need to stop playing politics with this. We have had enough of that with the odious Dent Coad
You seem to have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with Dent Coad. Why? Her "report" into social divisions in K&C used the figure of around 80 deaths from Grenfell, which was the official estimate at the time. Her report, though hyper-partisan and a bit hysterical, is nevertheless a sobering read and a useful contribution to the debate which needs to take place into these issues which have been eating away at London for a decade and more. Whatever her faults, she clearly knows her own patch assiduously and cares about it with a passion, we could do with more MPs like that.
I think you will find a large number of senior Tories share her low opinion of Shaun Bailey though her race-baiting language was stupid and unnecessary.
Not impressed with the BBC allowing people to claim that the number of people killed at Grenfell Tower was a lot higher than the official figure. If the BBC wants to do a thorough investigation of the claims, and present their findings, then fine. Otherwise, I suggest that STFU.
I understand the Met have announced the final toll including, sadly, a still born baby
The announcement was made after extensive and thorough forensics so the BBC need to stop playing politics with this. We have had enough of that with the odious Dent Coad
You seem to have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with Dent Coad. Why? Her "report" into social divisions in K&C used the figure of around 80 deaths from Grenfell, which was the official estimate at the time. Her report, though hyper-partisan and a bit hysterical, is nevertheless a sobering read and a useful contribution to the debate which needs to take place into these issues which have been eating away at London for a decade and more. Whatever her faults, she clearly knows her own patch assiduously and cares about it with a passion, we could do with more MPs like that.
I think you will find a large number of senior Tories share her low opinion of Shaun Bailey though her race-baiting language was stupid and unnecessary.
Perhaps because she was heavily involved with organisations making decisions over Grenfell and did not voice any such concerns at the time?
a lot space than we do. Also, a lot more trailer parks. And a highly restrictive immigration policy. I'm not sure a like-for-like compa
"Build more houses" would be my first solution to solving the crisis, restricting immigration to sustainable levels would (hint: 250,000 new people per annum is not sustainable when you are only building about 150,000 new houses per year).
Current net new dwellings are running at 217k in 2016-7, which is 45% more than the 150k you mention.
Net new dwellings include the likes of conversions and changes of use. And I think a certain amount of fiddling by Councils who designate rooms-with-a-shower or similar in HMOs as Council Band A units to get the Council Tax and the government incentive payments.
The actual "newbuild" number is 184k, which is 22% above your figure.
Those numbers are for England, so if you add in Wales, Scotland, N Ireland (+22% approx) at the same rate per pop, it puts the UK at 264k net new dwellings. That is quite probably above the 250k, even if WSNI are doing less well.
I think the Tories have this one licked, unless something goes off the rails. They have been chipping away at it for more than 5 years. The question is whether they can get cut-through, and Mrs May being so supine in Parliament will not help.
One problem will be the inability of Mayor Sadiq to get things done.
Annual housing supply in England amounted to 217,350 net additional dwellings in 2016-17, up 15% on 2015-16.
The 217,350 net additions in 2016-17 resulted from 183,570 new build homes, 37,190 gains from change of use between non-domestic and residential, 5,680 from conversions between houses and flats and 720 other gains (caravans, house boats etc.), offset by 9,820 demolitions.
18,887 of the net additions from change of use were through ‘permitted development rights’ (full planning permission not required). These comprised 17,751 additional dwellings from former offices, 330 from agricultural or forestry buildings, 106 from storage buildings and 700 from other non-domestic buildings
Firstly fair play for offering an alternative viewpoint. Intriguing to think the govt has secretly solved the housing problem without anyone’s noticing.
But in the 1960s and 70s - England was building > 300k houses per year. The house price to earning median ratio has doubled or more in most parts of the country since 1997. Shelter estimates you need 250k new builds in England alone to meet demand. And if you consistently run below demand- price should rise. Which is what we have seen.
a lot space than we do. Also, a lot more trailer parks. And a highly restrictive immigration policy. I'm not sure a like-for-like compa
"Build more houses" would be my first solution to solving the crisis, restricting immigration to sustainable levels would (hint: 250,000 new people per annum is not sustainable when you are only building about 150,000 new houses per year).
Those numbers are for England, so if you add in Wales, Scotland, N Ireland (+22% approx) at the same rate per pop, it puts the UK at 264k net new dwellings. That is quite probably above the 250k, even if WSNI are doing less well.
I think the Tories have this one licked, unless something goes off the rails. They have been chipping away at it for more than 5 years. The question is whether they can get cut-through, and Mrs May being so supine in Parliament will not help.
One problem will be the inability of Mayor Sadiq to get things done.
Annual housing supply in England amounted to 217,350 net additional dwellings in 2016-17, up 15% on 2015-16.
The 217,350 net additions in 2016-17 resulted from 183,570 new build homes, 37,190 gains from change of use between non-domestic and residential, 5,680 from conversions between houses and flats and 720 other gains (caravans, house boats etc.), offset by 9,820 demolitions.
18,887 of the net additions from change of use were through ‘permitted development rights’ (full planning permission not required). These comprised 17,751 additional dwellings from former offices, 330 from agricultural or forestry buildings, 106 from storage buildings and 700 from other non-domestic buildings
Firstly fair play for offering an alternative viewpoint. Intriguing to think the govt has secretly solved the housing problem without anyone’s noticing.
But in the 1960s and 70s - England was building > 300k houses per year. The house price to earning median ratio has doubled or more in most parts of the country since 1997. Shelter estimates you need 250k new builds in England alone to meet demand. And if you consistently run below demand- price should rise. Which is what we have seen.
So I don’t buy it.
Even in the 1960s and 1970s we were still building on bomb sites, replacing what had been destroyed in WW2. In fact the last big bomb sites in central London amazingly remained undeveloped as late as the early 1990s, such as the one next to Ludgate Hill where City Thameslink station is today. It was only the aftermath of Big Bang which enabled the last of them to be profitably developed. A different world to today's situation and not easily comparable.
Not impressed with the BBC allowing people to claim that the number of people killed at Grenfell Tower was a lot higher than the official figure. If the BBC wants to do a thorough investigation of the claims, and present their findings, then fine. Otherwise, I suggest that STFU.
BBC news front page is prominently reporting 71 dead.
Per BBC report:
"The original missing persons list was also made higher by fraudulent cases, police said, with some individuals attempting to benefit financially from the tragedy.
There are a number of ongoing fraud investigations, and earlier this month one man pleaded guilty to fraud after claiming that his wife and son had both died in the fire."
Comments
(ducks for cover)
Net new dwellings include the likes of conversions and changes of use. And I think a certain amount of fiddling by Councils who designate rooms-with-a-shower or similar in HMOs as Council Band A units to get the Council Tax and the government incentive payments.
The actual "newbuild" number is 184k, which is 22% above your figure.
Those numbers are for England, so if you add in Wales, Scotland, N Ireland (+22% approx) at the same rate per pop, it puts the UK at 264k net new dwellings. That is quite probably above the 250k, even if WSNI are doing less well.
I think the Tories have this one licked, unless something goes off the rails. They have been chipping away at it for more than 5 years. The question is whether they can get cut-through, and Mrs May being so supine in Parliament will not help.
One problem will be the inability of Mayor Sadiq to get things done.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/659529/Housing_Supply_England_2016-17.pdf
Annual housing supply in England amounted to 217,350
net additional dwellings in 2016-17, up 15% on 2015-16.
The 217,350 net additions in 2016-17 resulted from
183,570 new build homes, 37,190 gains from change of
use between non-domestic and residential, 5,680 from
conversions between houses and flats and 720 other gains
(caravans, house boats etc.), offset by 9,820 demolitions.
18,887 of the net additions from change of use were
through ‘permitted development rights’ (full planning
permission not required). These comprised 17,751
additional dwellings from former offices, 330 from
agricultural or forestry buildings, 106 from storage
buildings and 700 from other non-domestic buildings
Merkel is weaker than May at present, not that I think that is a good thing
Oh, hang on, you were just parroting the Kremin then.
On the contrary it may encourage smaller homes via subdivision so an increase.
Farmland? When we already can't grow enough food to support even half our population?
Woodland? When we already have one of the lowest rates for woodland cover in Europe (13% compared to an EU average of 39%)
Heathland? We have lost 75% of our lowland heaths in the last century.
Meadows? We have lost 97% of our meadows since WW2.
When people talk about using more land for housing they seem to think that land is currently unused or that its current use is unimportant. Neither of these is true.
Far better to follow the continental example and increase housing density rather than housing coverage.
Or we build smaller and smaller new build houses (average size of new build in 2017: 76 square metres, the smallest in Europe).
Until eventually we're all living 35 to what used to be a four bedroom house and a "bed in a shed" looks attractive. Soylent Green is people.
Not to mention the lack of building of schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure to keep pace.
Slow handclap.
The announcement was made after extensive and thorough forensics so the BBC need to stop playing politics with this. We have had enough of that with the odious Dent Coad
Sorry if that upsets you
The value of the land is probably about £60k so Pong's tax would be £1,800.
You should read the Dutch reports and feel embarrassed.
I think you will find a large number of senior Tories share her low opinion of Shaun Bailey though her race-baiting language was stupid and unnecessary.
But in the 1960s and 70s - England was building > 300k houses per year.
The house price to earning median ratio has doubled or more in most parts of the country since 1997.
Shelter estimates you need 250k new builds in England alone to meet demand.
And if you consistently run below demand- price should rise. Which is what we have seen.
So I don’t buy it.
Per BBC report:
"The original missing persons list was also made higher by fraudulent cases, police said, with some individuals attempting to benefit financially from the tragedy.
There are a number of ongoing fraud investigations, and earlier this month one man pleaded guilty to fraud after claiming that his wife and son had both died in the fire."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42008279