borpin: For immediate Social Housing needs, I'd like to see factory built 'cabin' accommodation"
See latest https://passivehouseplus.co.uk/issuu/uk-edition p38

As one of the articles in FT link states there is a v good example of the Cardiff homeless accommodation.
There was a Grand Designs I watched a couple of weeks or so ago where a couple had a modular factory build complete with plumbing electrics kitchen bath etc and craned together on sight and coupled up. The second floor of 1 unit was skewed at an angle so house did not look too boxy. Seemed to work quite well I thought.

Posted By: WillInAberdeenI'm not sure that a trailerpark- sized cabin complies with the minimum space standard - anyone know?

The cabins (rather than the mobile homes) can't be far off 50m².

Yes agree they should meet this and equally totally possible with modular units. 7mx10m isn't huge (my garage is almost as big as this)!

Posted By: fostertomI'd like to see factory built 'cabin' accommodation"

I have the mag sitting here ready to read

There is a policy within SG (Scottish Government) AIUI, that is offering grants to councils for this type of scheme.

All the negative arguments did not come up with a suggested alternative to getting accommodation built quickly to give everyone the opportunity of a decent place to live.

Disrupting the current housing market is exactly what is needed!

Posted By: borpinDisrupting the current housing market is exactly what is needed!

As may be, but too much disruption could have significant impact on mortgage holders potentially pushing them into years of negative equity and private landlords who rely on buy to let for their pension. (with about 40% of B2L landlords supplementing their pension with B2L)

Posted By: Peter_in_Hungary

Posted By: borpinDisrupting the current housing market is exactly what is needed!

As may be, but too much disruption could have significant impact on mortgage holders potentially pushing them into years of negative equity and private landlords who rely on buy to let for their pension. (with about 40% of B2L landlords supplementing their pension with B2L)

Which is worse though. Negative equity or no home?

As for B2L, much of the housing problems can be attributed to this odious product. It a parasitical way to enrich oneself. I realise some will be very upset by my take on this but I fail to see and moral argument that can be made for it.

I think philedge is correct with the need verses want angle.

Posted By: borpinthe house price spiral caused by the banks

and the other single largest cause is demand for houses being bought to rent out - capital gain (like owner/occupiers) but the mortgage comfortably paid meanwhile as well (unlike owner/occupiers), ever better as attainable rents (in the politically-created absence of social housing) escalate. A small-capitalist's wet dream!

If ever raw capitalism needed to be put in check by public intervention rather than connivance, this unholy wheeze on poor people needs to be ended - instead accountable social housing.

Posted By: JontiIMO B2L has no place a society with a social conscience.

So no landlords except the govenment and non-profit organisations? I presume you are refering to domestic properties only?

Drifted quite a way OT

Posted By: Peter_in_HungaryI can see some society stigma approaching

It's clear to me, as Architect who has de facto come to specialise in domestic works for private clients, that it's a diminishing clientelle who can afford it - the sector's days are numbered (and it's a strange career for someone with lefty leanings). It's pretty much limited to those private pensioners who have been politically lucky within the vagaries of the pensions system (many more haven't) and have recession-proof cash pension pots to dispose. No one now can finance this stuff from a current salary, except the 'rich' few. And such fat pension deals are dying with the current crop of pensioners. So this line of work will see me out, but is ending.

I'm talking about traditional labour-intensive on-site ways of building or altering/extending/improving the private housing stock, including eco-retrofitting. And also, tho not my field, landlords' work on buy-to-let properties, which I do understand, is a crippling (hence bare-minimum) expense that threatens to upset that cushy number (another reason to make rentals a matter for social housing).

So, if the ability to afford such building work, hitherto the 'right' of the broad middle classes, is becoming the preserve of the 'rich' few, then yes being too poor may acquire a social stigma - but only as one aspect of being not 'rich'. And great swathes of private housing will remain un-altered/extended/improved, let alone eco-retrofitted, as adequate private funds dry up - and that bedrock, easy-entry sector of building industry employment will also disappear. That's strange to say, after recent over-demand/under-supply of small builders, with rocketing prices and slap-happy work, tho now changing, with recession worries.

As so much of the products of the economy, that we buy, are becoming automated, at crashing price, those products which remain labour intensive (schooling, health, traditional building industry etc) look relatively more and more expensive, within the whole economy. There's no way round that, for as long as 'earning a living' is the only 'respectable' way that the proceeds of a society's economic activity can reach the pockets of the society's members. Scrap that old myth and possibilities open up.

Until (and including) then, mechanisation/robotisation of the building industry at all levels, both newbuild (easy) and upgrading the existing building stock (much ingenuity/AI still to be applied) is a societal necessity, long delayed by timid governments.

Posted By: borpin

Posted By: JontiIMO B2L has no place a society with a social conscience.

So no landlords except the govenment and non-profit organisations? I presume you are refering to domestic properties only?http:///newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/bigsmile.gif" alt="" title="" >

Drifted quite a way OThttp:///newforum/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/bigsmile.gif" alt="" title="" >

B2L mortgages didn't exist before 1996 so to suggest it is only way to finance the rental sector is incorrect. It has added to the increase in house prices, removed valuable housing from the home owner sector and created an artificial need for rental property. It has also allowed those with a little more to effectively enrich themselves at the expense of those who have not.

Posted By: Peter_in_Hungary

Posted By: JontiIMO B2L has no place a society with a social conscience.

If there is no B2L what happens to those not entitled to social housing.

B2L has nothing to do with social housing so I am at a loss as to why you would link them.

In our area there are approx 200 applicants for every council house that becomes available!

Posted By: Jonti

Posted By: Jeff BJonti - I think what PiH is saying is: if B2L was banned then there would surely be a dearth of privately rented properties and those not entitled to social housing would find it extremely difficult or impossible to rent one.

You might be right and It is a good point but then those same people would find plenty more houses to buy would be available which is what many of them want to.

I know folk who can afford, what to me, are incredibly high rents but cannot afford to buy a house because they simply don't have enough money for the deposit. The irony is the amount they would pay per month for the mortgage is less than the rental figure!