Prefab isn’t the ultimate solution, but it certainly can play a big role. It’s baffling how the initiative got so mucked up in Bristol.
Alex Carnegie
2 months ago
The current planning system – with its combination of individual home approvals and reduced number of planners – guarantees shortages, delays and lack of innovation. This forces prices up and quality down. We need to switch to a simpler and faster planning system based on zoning and limited but enforced building regulations – as in many other countries. The success of the Docklands shows what is possible when restrictions ease. The current situation suits both builders and existing home owners, of course, so one should not expect progress anytime soon.
So would a system which allowed more self-build. People building their own homes care more about build quality. The planning “system” is a disgrace.
But another article about housing which fails to acknowledge the basic law of supply and demand. The government-backed cheap money pumping up prices (together with endless state-backed price support and subsidy schemes like “help to buy”). And the massive population increase. Both unforced errors.
John Dellingby
2 months ago
It’s depressing how competence seems to be in very short supply, especially at the decision making level in this country. I also can’t help but think we’re building the wrong homes.
Ideally, as the population ages, we should be encouraging older people to sell their 3-4 bedroom home and perhaps move to more suitable accommodation like bungalows for example. However, would people in this position make that move, even if it were available? Doubtful.
I think there’s an age after which older people become very reluctant to take large decisions like moving. My mother (now in her eighties) and several of her friends still like in their family homes and have passed the point where they will ever move, unless it’s to a care home or hospital.
I don’t see bungalows as a silver bullet. These use just as much land as family homes these days (sometimes more) and it’s land which is the limiting factor on housing supply (due to excessive planning restrictions).
But yes, the allocating of housing to people is often wildly mismatched in the UK. A substantial minority people with much more housing (rooms, area, sometimes multiple properties) than they really need and a larger group with less. But I still wouldn’t want government interfering to reallocate housing – that would only make things worse.
High property taxes could theoretically help with the allocation problem. But no one except for economists seem to like the idea of having to pay the state for the privilege of owning your own property. For some reason, people seem much happier to pay for the privilege of making one’s own money (i.e. income taxation). I guess part of the reason is that no Western government would be likely to lower income taxes in tandem with increasing the property taxes; they’d just increase the overall tax burden and keep bloating the public sector.
Yes, Ali. Introduce CGT on final sale of a house with interim Roll Over of the gain into a replacement house, and no double taxation with IHT in addition. Other countries do this. This and other measures would stop the obsession with rising house prices which harms our children who cannot afford to buy a modest house. Of course Income Taxes should be reduced if capital tax raises sufficient money.
simon mcgregor-wood
2 months ago
An piece that needs photos surely?
Michael Marron
2 months ago
Perhaps researching who actually did boost this might have been worthwhile?
Step forward that intellectual giant John Prescott. This was the main thrust of his 50K house ambition. And as most Housing Association executives are Labour supporters, they went and go along with it.
It is only public money after all, and there is plenty more where that came from.
Matt M
2 months ago
The UK birth rate is below replacement. The divorce rate is down and the marriage rate is up. The majority of homes in Britain are owned outright and will form the basis of an avalanche of inherited property within a decade. Surely we only need to replace dilapidated properties, not increase the housing stock. Where is the demand coming from that we need a new generation of pre-fabs?
*I’m joking of course! We all know where the demand is coming from*
A reasonable point Matt; but most existing houses are too expensive, while minimal low cost and ‘social’ housing is built: the builder can make more profit from larger houses and understandably wants to build these. We have no vision of ‘New Towns’ and town planning as did our forebears after WW2.
There is also a structural geographic imbalance. There is demand for more houses south of The Trent, while in Lancashire there are street rows of dilapidated houses lying empty.
On the ‘inheritance point’ you rightly make, it seems a lottery whether you have parents who own a house or not; and whether you are their sole child or have multiple siblings.
But my point is that if you had zero immigration (I exaggerate to make the point) the difference between births and deaths mean that you would only need 27,000 new homes a year to meet demand. You don’t need New Towns if you keep the immigration numbers to below 100k net per year.
On social housing, if you limited immigration to a sensible number, you could use the existing council houses and housing association properties for the purpose for which they were intended – to house young, working-class families local to the area on subsidised rents giving them the same security that their richer countrymen enjoy.
In terms of regional imbalance, surely remote working gives us the opportunity to spread out around this country and not need to live within commuting distance of London.
On inheritance, yes it is a lottery but I do think it is an underappreciated phenomenon. Many of those journalists you hear moaning about the sky-high rents in London will in time inherited five bedroom piles in the home counties. Let’s see whether their views on Inheritance Taxes change when that happy day arrives.
Pip G
2 months ago
There is a large difference between (1) the concept of pre-fab and (2) its execution. My wife’s parents lived in a pre-fab built in 1950; and one of her children lives in it today. Post-War methods were way behind today’s but the house remains sturdy and attractive.
That today houses are built on bad foundations or flood plain; and are a block of housing with no public spaces and community, is a result of builders doing it for profit (as they should do) with poor public planning and inefficient systems to obtain planning permission.
It seems modern pre-fabs are manufactured solely for profit, with Government and Local Authority uninterested. With modern engineering and a good designer, pre-fab houses could be made attractive, while bulk purchase sponsored by government could reduce the price. The cited examples from Germany & Sweden show it is possible. Then, for all houses whether built on site or pre-fab, the standard of construction, the location and the attractiveness of the locality could be greatly improved.
Pete Marsh
2 months ago
They’re going to wind up as crap weather favelas aren’t they…
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
All these bullshit grants and sustainability targets. Let the market decide free of government intervention. The government should aim to level the playing field by allowing developers to experiment ( free up the planning system and allow all safe builds) and allow customers to choose
Prefab isn’t the ultimate solution, but it certainly can play a big role. It’s baffling how the initiative got so mucked up in Bristol.
The current planning system – with its combination of individual home approvals and reduced number of planners – guarantees shortages, delays and lack of innovation. This forces prices up and quality down. We need to switch to a simpler and faster planning system based on zoning and limited but enforced building regulations – as in many other countries. The success of the Docklands shows what is possible when restrictions ease. The current situation suits both builders and existing home owners, of course, so one should not expect progress anytime soon.
So would a system which allowed more self-build. People building their own homes care more about build quality. The planning “system” is a disgrace.
But another article about housing which fails to acknowledge the basic law of supply and demand. The government-backed cheap money pumping up prices (together with endless state-backed price support and subsidy schemes like “help to buy”). And the massive population increase. Both unforced errors.
It’s depressing how competence seems to be in very short supply, especially at the decision making level in this country. I also can’t help but think we’re building the wrong homes.
Ideally, as the population ages, we should be encouraging older people to sell their 3-4 bedroom home and perhaps move to more suitable accommodation like bungalows for example. However, would people in this position make that move, even if it were available? Doubtful.
I think there’s an age after which older people become very reluctant to take large decisions like moving. My mother (now in her eighties) and several of her friends still like in their family homes and have passed the point where they will ever move, unless it’s to a care home or hospital.
I don’t see bungalows as a silver bullet. These use just as much land as family homes these days (sometimes more) and it’s land which is the limiting factor on housing supply (due to excessive planning restrictions).
But yes, the allocating of housing to people is often wildly mismatched in the UK. A substantial minority people with much more housing (rooms, area, sometimes multiple properties) than they really need and a larger group with less. But I still wouldn’t want government interfering to reallocate housing – that would only make things worse.
High property taxes could theoretically help with the allocation problem. But no one except for economists seem to like the idea of having to pay the state for the privilege of owning your own property. For some reason, people seem much happier to pay for the privilege of making one’s own money (i.e. income taxation). I guess part of the reason is that no Western government would be likely to lower income taxes in tandem with increasing the property taxes; they’d just increase the overall tax burden and keep bloating the public sector.
Yes, Ali. Introduce CGT on final sale of a house with interim Roll Over of the gain into a replacement house, and no double taxation with IHT in addition. Other countries do this. This and other measures would stop the obsession with rising house prices which harms our children who cannot afford to buy a modest house. Of course Income Taxes should be reduced if capital tax raises sufficient money.
An piece that needs photos surely?
Perhaps researching who actually did boost this might have been worthwhile?
Step forward that intellectual giant John Prescott. This was the main thrust of his 50K house ambition. And as most Housing Association executives are Labour supporters, they went and go along with it.
It is only public money after all, and there is plenty more where that came from.
The UK birth rate is below replacement. The divorce rate is down and the marriage rate is up. The majority of homes in Britain are owned outright and will form the basis of an avalanche of inherited property within a decade. Surely we only need to replace dilapidated properties, not increase the housing stock. Where is the demand coming from that we need a new generation of pre-fabs?
*I’m joking of course! We all know where the demand is coming from*
Where? Do not be coy
Romania, Ghana, Bangladesh, Syria, Vietnam, Mali, Serbia, Albania, Morocco, South Africa, Indonesia, Kiribati, Georgia, Chad, etc etc
A reasonable point Matt; but most existing houses are too expensive, while minimal low cost and ‘social’ housing is built: the builder can make more profit from larger houses and understandably wants to build these. We have no vision of ‘New Towns’ and town planning as did our forebears after WW2.
There is also a structural geographic imbalance. There is demand for more houses south of The Trent, while in Lancashire there are street rows of dilapidated houses lying empty.
On the ‘inheritance point’ you rightly make, it seems a lottery whether you have parents who own a house or not; and whether you are their sole child or have multiple siblings.
But my point is that if you had zero immigration (I exaggerate to make the point) the difference between births and deaths mean that you would only need 27,000 new homes a year to meet demand. You don’t need New Towns if you keep the immigration numbers to below 100k net per year.
On social housing, if you limited immigration to a sensible number, you could use the existing council houses and housing association properties for the purpose for which they were intended – to house young, working-class families local to the area on subsidised rents giving them the same security that their richer countrymen enjoy.
In terms of regional imbalance, surely remote working gives us the opportunity to spread out around this country and not need to live within commuting distance of London.
On inheritance, yes it is a lottery but I do think it is an underappreciated phenomenon. Many of those journalists you hear moaning about the sky-high rents in London will in time inherited five bedroom piles in the home counties. Let’s see whether their views on Inheritance Taxes change when that happy day arrives.
There is a large difference between (1) the concept of pre-fab and (2) its execution. My wife’s parents lived in a pre-fab built in 1950; and one of her children lives in it today. Post-War methods were way behind today’s but the house remains sturdy and attractive.
That today houses are built on bad foundations or flood plain; and are a block of housing with no public spaces and community, is a result of builders doing it for profit (as they should do) with poor public planning and inefficient systems to obtain planning permission.
It seems modern pre-fabs are manufactured solely for profit, with Government and Local Authority uninterested. With modern engineering and a good designer, pre-fab houses could be made attractive, while bulk purchase sponsored by government could reduce the price. The cited examples from Germany & Sweden show it is possible. Then, for all houses whether built on site or pre-fab, the standard of construction, the location and the attractiveness of the locality could be greatly improved.
They’re going to wind up as crap weather favelas aren’t they…
All these bullshit grants and sustainability targets. Let the market decide free of government intervention. The government should aim to level the playing field by allowing developers to experiment ( free up the planning system and allow all safe builds) and allow customers to choose