Congratulations sir kier

Brigs maybe you would like to reflect on my earlier post. I have quoted it to the other trolls tonight. I hope you don't want to join them.

Andydevon said:
Given that its 300,00 per year or 1.5 million over the period of government it going to be a challenge. Especially as you can't just magic extra building capacity and change the planning regulations etc. Even with a lot of luck, planning, action and a fair wind it will take 18 months to get on track so that's a lot more than 300,000 per year for the 3 1/2 years left.

Do the house builders even have that capacity never mind supply side both materials and skilled labour?

Don't get me wrong I don't disagree we need more houses on brown and grey land but I fear the lady is setting herself up for a fall.
Click to expand...
 
Brigadier said:
300k Just so happens to be around the number of plots' worth of land, currently banked by the big three or four UK housebuilders.

RR is not as dumb as the hornsmokers on here.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the geengrey belt.
 
Mottie said:
When my mate sold his MoT station for development, no private developers were interested as a certain percentage of the flats would have to be 'affordable'. I don't think that people paying top dollar for a property want to pay top dollar to live next door to someone paying bottom dollar or no dollar! In the end, it was bought by a housing association. I think this happens a lot.
Click to expand...
What also happens is developers claim they cannot market the site with any affordable housing and the permission is re granted for private housing only. That is why leaving housing to the private sector isn't going to meet the public sector demand. I don't think it will change under Reaves
 
Back to the original thread title, Lyndsay has got his reward for supporting labour over the ceasefire amendment
 
Andydevon said:
Given that its 300,00 per year or 1.5 million over the period of government it going to be a challenge.
Click to expand...
You do realise they aren't going from zero to 300,000? It only works out at around an extra 250 new homes per annum for each council area, on average. More than doable...
 
Good morning Denso. You are of course correct and I did highlight this in my post.
 
"All of the main parties are committed to ending section 21. What matters is ensuring the replacement system works, and is fair, to both renters and responsible landlords.

Given this, we agree with the Shadow Housing Minister who has argued that 'landlords need robust grounds for possessions in legitimate circumstances, and they need the system to operate quickly when they do.'

Much better, all of that passed Mick by...
 
What would stop the landlord increasing the rent to get the tenants out? For me it should be possible to evict a tenant providing you serve reasonable notice. I think that could be 3 months.
 
ReganAndCarter said:
Looks like they're already out to wreck the rental market. Didn't take them long.
Click to expand...
Interesting point but somewhat dependent one who finishes up in the low rent ones. Builders may be inclined to say not enough profit but on the other hand if it's not tried we just wont know if it can work. LOL Also they are builders - they need work.
 
motorbiking said:
What would stop the landlord increasing the rent to get the tenants out? For me it should be possible to evict a tenant providing you serve reasonable notice. I think that could be 3 months.
Click to expand...
True is will be as it turns out when it happens. I thought I had heard that Scotland had ended no fault. If so their rules may figure or maybe ................?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top