|
||||||||
Government to give 20% subsidy for £450,000 starter homes |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,307
|
Government to give 20% subsidy for £450,000 starter homes
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,030
|
£450 000 isn't a starter home and giving away 90 grand to a small section of society is taking the piss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,157
|
At prices of up to £450,000! Even with a 20% discount, that's £360,000. Anyone who can afford that doesn't need the discount imo.
If they're going to use public money for housing, I'd rather they built council houses, tbh. At least that would help people who have no other way of getting a decent, secure home. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,344
|
Holy heck. Do they check if you've never bought a home before? £90,000 is not to be sneered at. Hell, for some, it's a lottery win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
It's only £250k outside the London area, that's peanuts!
---------------------------------- Well no, it isn't. Anyone who could afford £200k contribution can afford a "starter home" all on their own. I assume it's yet more public money for the building industry, helping out the well-to-do is a bonus. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,029
|
I am not impressed with this Theresa.
![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
|
Quote:
I am not impressed with this Theresa.
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,137
|
Disgusting when you consider that there are hundreds of thousands of seriously disabled people in urgent need of adapted housing who are being ignored, left in pain and sometimes without dignity by this callous, uncaring government. These people are far more deserving of help than relatively well off first time buyers, IMO. In addition to the human cost, the increased costs to the NHS and social care of not providing safe housing show the current Conservative Party are almost as incompetent as they are callous. Oh for a decent opposition party!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,307
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
|
Quote:
£450 000 isn't a starter home and giving away 90 grand to a small section of society is taking the piss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,621
|
For the millionaires in the Cabinet, £450,000 probably is a starter home. Shows how out of touch they are with the rest of us, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
|
Quote:
Yes, as ever, the Tories are lining their mates' pockets with public money and looking after their own kind. What the country desperately needs are good, solid affordable council houses not flashy come-ons to young Tories most of whose mummies and daddies can easily fund their property requirements. This scheme stinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,581
|
Quote:
Not everyone aspires to life on a council estate.
Meanwhile, they're keen to remove our taxes which paid to help those with disabilities and use it to pay for their own pay rises, "expenses", and second/third or fourth country estates. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
|
Quote:
These are the people who pay the most income tax to pay for the things that the less fortunate want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,058
|
Quote:
Not everyone aspires to life on a council estate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,197
|
Quote:
Not everyone aspires to life on a council estate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
|
Quote:
Not everyone aspires to life on a council estate.
The government's approach to "fixing" our housing crisis stinks. They don't seem to want to make the correct - though hard - decision of just getting on and building more houses, for fear of offending the blue rinses and baby boomers who think their houses should constantly rise in value. Why don't we spend the 20% per house on something that would actually benefit society. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
|
Quote:
Probably because it's used as reject housing for the most destitute and most problematic tenants, rather than how it was originally - a mix of statuses, incomes, backgrounds all living together
Now the area is a dump. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,827
|
The £1.2 billion is for local authorities to acquire brown field sites demolition of the buildings already there and decontamination of the land. The land is then sold to developers and the money received goes back into the fund. The developers buying the land will have to build starter homes that they will have to sell at 20% below market price. Local authorities through planning will dictate the mix of housing to meet local needs. The max starter home price £450,000 London, £250,000 outside London is down to local authorities wanting flexibility in the homes built.
The fund is expected to enable the building of 30,000 starter homes by 2020. I don't find it that objectionable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
|
Quote:
The £1.2 billion is for local authorities to acquire brown field sites demolition of the buildings already there and decontamination of the land. The land is then sold to developers and the money received goes back into the fund. The developers buying the land will have to build starter homes that they will have to sell at 20% below market price. Local authorities through planning will dictate the mix of housing to meet local needs. The max starter home price £450,000 London, £250,000 outside London is down to local authorities wanting flexibility in the homes built.
The fund is expected to enable the building of 30,000 starter homes by 2020. I don't find it that objectionable. It's ridiculous that £250k is even considered to be starter home pricing. It just shows how utterly out of whack the market is. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Somewhere or Other
Posts: 7,408
|
Like the multitude of other Tory housing schemes, it will give the impression of 'action' and 'helping FTBers' whilst not undermining house prices (it might even boost them). In political terms, it will be considered a success!
Will be interesting to see how much developers involved raise their prices prior to applying the 'discount'. My guess is 15% or so. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,827
|
Quote:
So it's yet another giveaway to developers who can easily afford to build on the massive land banks that they already own.
It's ridiculous that £250k is even considered to be starter home pricing. It just shows how utterly out of whack the market is. £250,000 outside London is the maximum house price. On a mixed housing development I would expect some 4 bed homes or at least some 3 bed homes in the mix. In many areas you would be very lucky to find such homes for £250,000. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,633
|
Quote:
It enables building on brown field sites that otherwise would not be developed.
£250,000 outside London is the maximum house price. On a mixed housing development I would expect some 4 bed homes or at least some 3 bed homes in the mix. In many areas you would be very lucky to find such homes for £250,000. I know it's a maximum, I'm saying the maximum is far too high. A 3 or 4 bed home isn't a "starter home" by any definition. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 577
|
£450.000 brilliant just brilliant, you could not make it up, fecking ejits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,827
|
Quote:
If these sites were so problematic, then logically they could be sold at a knock down price and the developer could fund their own cleanup and remediation. It shouldn't need the state to get involved and give it to them on a silver platter, courtesy of the taxpayer
I know it's a maximum, I'm saying the maximum is far too high. A 3 or 4 bed home isn't a "starter home" by any definition. The local authorities wanted the ability to have a mix of housing. Maybe the description should have been changed to homes at a 20% discount on formerly contaminated land. If the scheme did not have any requirements on developers buying the land made fit to build on by local authorities using state funds, would you find it less objectionable? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23.



