That isn’t a typo. Of the 12,322 households in Burgess Hill, 4,658 of
those properties don’t only have one spare bedroom, but two spare bedrooms, and
it is this topic I want to talk about this week, my Burgess Hill Property Market
Blog readers – because this could be the cure for Burgess Hill’s housing crisis. The fundamental problem of the Burgess Hill housing
‘crisis’, is the fact that the supply of homes to live in has not historically
met demand, increasing property values (and in turn rents), thus ensuring home
ownership becomes an unattainable ambition for the twenty something’s of Burgess Hill.
Call me a realist, but it’s obvious that either demand needs to drop or
supply needs to rise to stop this trend getting worse for the generations to
come. Don’t get me wrong, I admire
Downing Street’s plans to build 200,000 starter homes which will be offered to first time buyers under 40
with a minimum 20% discount price. However, the building of starter homes on current building sites, where
new homes builders already have to build a certain number of affordable ‘starter’
homes at the moment under a different scheme, does not increase the stock of
new ‘starter’ homes; it simply replaces one affordable scheme with another.
One option that could resolve the housing crisis is if the Government literally
looked closer to home, concentrating on matching households with the
appropriate sized home.
In Burgess Hill, 9,105 households have one spare bedroom and of these, 4,658
have two or more spare bedrooms.
This compares to 310 households in Burgess Hill that are overcrowded (i.e.
there are more people than bedrooms in the property).
Looking specifically at the homeowners of Burgess Hill, 3,668 owner
occupied Burgess Hill houses have one spare bedroom. Now having a spare bedroom is not considered
a luxury. However, in addition to those 3,668
households with one spare bedroom, there are on top, a further 4,421 owner
occupied Burgess Hill households with two or more spare bedrooms.
Therefore, I am beginning to see there is the spare capacity in the Burgess
Hill housing market. Principally, I will
concentrate on the group that makes up the bulk of this category, the owner
occupiers of large properties, in their 60’s and 70’s, where the kids flew the
nest back in the 80’s and 90’s. They
call it ‘downsizing’, when you sell a big property, where the extra bedrooms
are no longer required, to move into a smaller and, usually, less expensive property.
However, there are many explanations why these individuals do not
downsize. These people have lived in the same house for
30, 40 even 50 years, and as one matures in life, many people do not want to depart
from what they see as the family home. Much
time has been invested in making friends in the area and it’s nice to have all
those rooms in case every grandchild decided to visit, at the same time, and
they brought their friends! But on a
more serious note, more and more people are beginning to downsize earlier, but in
my opinion, not at a fast enough rate. As
the years go on we will have a situation where younger families will be living
in smaller and smaller houses, whilst all the large houses with a couple of 70
something empty-nesters rattling around them!
I believe the Government should put more weight behind downsizing,
because with the right incentives, many could be encouraged to think again and
make the spare rooms available.
It would have to be incentives, as using the stick (instead of the
carrot) would be political suicide for any party, especially the Tory’s. One option is to allow retired downsizers not
to pay stamp duty on the new property, saving them thousands of pounds and
another for the planners to work with builders to build not only starter homes
for under 40’s, but also have housing built just for retired downsizers, or is
this one step too far in ‘social engineering’?
No comments:
Post a Comment