That isn’t a typo, of the 42,925 households in Crawley, 13,517 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 Crawley Property Market Blog
readers – because this could be the cure for Crawley’s housing crisis. The fundamental problem of the Crawley 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 Crawley.
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 Crawley, 27,216 households have
one spare bedroom and of these, 13,517 have two or more spare bedrooms.
This compares to 2,348 households in Crawley that are overcrowded (i.e.
there are more people than bedrooms in the property).
Looking specifically at the homeowners of Crawley, 8,868 owner occupied Crawley
houses have one spare bedroom. Now
having a spare bedroom is not considered a luxury. However, in addition to those 8,868
households with one spare bedroom, there are on top, a further 11,277 owner
occupied Crawley households with two or more spare bedrooms.
Therefore, I am beginning to see there is the spare capacity in the Crawley
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.
Are modern houses shrinking? |
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 one, 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.
.. and it would have to be incentives, as the 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