On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:42:01PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
on Wed, 9 Sep 2015, David Cantrell remarked:
I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in
London and its immediate surroundings there is little land left to build
on unless you first knock something down.
Whereas where I live in Mid-Cambs, a place with a severe housing
shortage, the vast majority of new homes are on green fields sites.
Assuming the developers can be bothered to build them, which for a
couple of the developments north of Cambridge they can't.

Are you sure it's because they can't be arsed, or because they don't
have the necessary capital, or because there is insufficient labour
available with the relevant skills at the price they're willing to pay,
or any other reason?

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

I don't do .INI, .BAT, or .SYS files. I don't assign apps to files.
I don't configure peripherals or networks before using them. I have
a computer to do all that. I have a Macintosh, not a hobby.
-- Fritz Anderson

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
10:59:58 on Wed, 9 Sep 2015, remarked:

The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment sites,
mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's Gardens, is
more reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable housing (40% on newer
developments).

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging
half a million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more
expensive for freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in
the 700-800k bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.

Last week's property supplement has a 1 bed flat in St Matthew's Gardens
with an asking price of £260K.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:48:21PM +0000, y wrote:

You can't dump 8 million new people into a country over 15 years ...

Population in 2000: 58.9 million
Population in 2015: 64.9 million

I know that 6 and 8 look a bit similar if you squint, but they are in
fact different.

And of course a goodly chunk of those 6 million are births to people who
were already here in 2000. The birth rate then was 11.5 per thousand, so
if we assume that that remains constant, there were roughly 650,000
births per year to people who fall outside your 8 million. There were
roughly 500,000 deaths in 2008, the earliest year within that window
that I can find a firm figure for, so if we assume that that is also
constant, there are 150,000 more people per year who weren't "dumped"
here. That's 2.25 million people.

6 million minus 2.25 million is 3.75 million more people as a result of
immigration over the last 15 years. Call it about 4 million +/- a
million because assumptions.

I could excuse you confusing 6 and 8, but really, you've got to be a
special kind of stupid to confuse 4 and 8, or a liar, or incredibly
gullible. Which is it?

--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist

What plaything can you offer me today?

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:42:01PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
on Wed, 9 Sep 2015, David Cantrell remarked:
I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in
London and its immediate surroundings there is little land left to
build on unless you first knock something down.
Whereas where I live in Mid-Cambs, a place with a severe housing
shortage, the vast majority of new homes are on green fields sites.
Assuming the developers can be bothered to build them, which for a
couple of the developments north of Cambridge they can't.

Are you sure it's because they can't be arsed, or because they don't
have the necessary capital, or because there is insufficient labour
available with the relevant skills at the price they're willing to pay,
or any other reason?

I'm with Roland on this.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 16:31:07
on Wed, 9 Sep 2015, remarked:

There are a few brown-site developments in the City Centre, but they
are usually at the high end of the market (eg £500k for two beds).

The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment sites,
mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's Gardens, is
more reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable housing (40% on newer
developments).

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging
half a million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more
expensive for freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in
the 700-800k bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.

Both developments have affordable housing elements which wouldn't be visible
by the means you are looking at.

Assuming the leasehold flats in those developments are the "affordable"
element, then they also appear. But the audience for affordable housing
is so restricted it doesn't help the average person find somewhere to
live. They are stuck with the "unaffordable" half, which is even more
expensive than it would otherwise be, on account of the cross-subsidy.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 07:06:54
on Thu, 10 Sep 2015, remarked:

The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment sites,
mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's Gardens, is
more reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable housing (40% on newer
developments).

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging
half a million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more
expensive for freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in
the 700-800k bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.

Last week's property supplement has a 1 bed flat in St Matthew's Gardens
with an asking price of £260K.

Not sure if that's evidence of a high price (£260k a bedroom vs £125k)
or what.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:58:04
on Thu, 10 Sep 2015, David Cantrell remarked:

I'm more inclined to blame Clement Attlee's green belts. At least in
London and its immediate surroundings there is little land left to build
on unless you first knock something down.
Whereas where I live in Mid-Cambs, a place with a severe housing
shortage, the vast majority of new homes are on green fields sites.
Assuming the developers can be bothered to build them, which for a
couple of the developments north of Cambridge they can't.

Are you sure it's because they can't be arsed, or because they don't
have the necessary capital, or because there is insufficient labour
available with the relevant skills at the price they're willing to pay,
or any other reason?

They've already bought the land (which is perhaps half the cost),
there's no shortage of labour, but they know that having added it all up
and included the stealth taxes of s106/affordable housing subsidy they
don't expect enough people will be able to buy the houses in the current
economic climate.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:26:46 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:48:21PM +0000, y wrote:

You can't dump 8 million new people into a country over 15 years ...

Population in 2000: 58.9 million
Population in 2015: 64.9 million

I know that 6 and 8 look a bit similar if you squint, but they are in
fact different.

You forgot the number of british nationals who were born abroad. They still
count as immigrants.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/rea...elegraph-8-mil
lion-foreigners-britain

"The 8 million figure refers to the number of people living in the UK who were
not born in Britain. According to ONS data, the figure in 2013 was 7.9 million
The latest estimate for non-UK born, non-UK nationals living in Britain is 4.9 m
illion, the ONS said, just under 8% of the population (or one in 13 people)."

I'll believe the ONS rather than you thanks.

special kind of stupid to confuse 4 and 8, or a liar, or incredibly
gullible. Which is it?

Don't look in the mirror while you type, it never ends well.

--
Spud

On 2015\09\10 14:46, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:06:54
on Thu, 10 Sep 2015, remarked:

The large amount of (fairly) recent building on former employment
sites,
mainly ex-Philips like at St Andrew's Road and St Matthew's Gardens, is
more reasonably priced. And some 30% is affordable housing (40% on
newer
developments).

St Matthew's Gardens is a bit cheaper with 3/4 bed houses nudging
half a million. St Andrews Road, on the other hand, is much more
expensive for freehold 3/4 beds with several valued at the moment in
the 700-800k bracket. Leasehold 2 bed flats are around 400k.

Last week's property supplement has a 1 bed flat in St Matthew's Gardens
with an asking price of £260K.

Not sure if that's evidence of a high price (£260k a bedroom vs £125k)
or what.

Lord knows I go off-topic myself from time to time, but flat prices in
various named streets in Cambridge is taking things too far IMO.

In message , at 16:03:14 on Thu, 10 Sep
2015, Basil Jet remarked:

Last week's property supplement has a 1 bed flat in St Matthew's Gardens
with an asking price of £260K.

Not sure if that's evidence of a high price (£260k a bedroom vs £125k)
or what.

Lord knows I go off-topic myself from time to time, but flat prices in
various named streets in Cambridge is taking things too far IMO.

It's not that bad, actually. We are simply raising typical prices for
typical ten-year-old brown fields developments.

The wider issue is why people feel compelled to buy a flat in Ely
because it's half the price of Cambridge [and commute] or buy a flat in
Cambridge because it's a third the price of Westminster [and commute].

The whole "South East" commuting thing where people claim to be "forced
to commute by train" is predicated on the proposition that you can't buy
a 4 bed family home with a garden and view over Hyde Park for a
realistic amount of money.
--
Roland Perry