Intermediate housing

Also, I have a big issue where landlords leave their properties empty for long periods. This applies both to the private and council landlords.

In our area we have 2 good family size flats above 2 empty shop owned by the same landlord that have been empty for OVER 15 YEARS!

Plus there has been a 3 bed semi detached house owned by Greenwich Council empty since January 2019.

Both need to get there fingers out.

I would like to see smart modular units put in places where space is tight but can help young people be near their place of work.

These can be built off site and installed in 1 or 2 days on a concrete base fitted out with the services.

For some ideas look what IKEA can do in small spaces.

As our shopping trends are changing, why cant more empty shops be changed into homes giving the high street a heart.

I felt some of the questions in the survey were a little leading. Was this reviewed by polling experts or psychologists before publication?

We need a courageous and bold policy to address the issue of foreign buyers leaving properties empty. Everyone knows it is distorting the picture and London is full of empty accomodation as a result of buildings being used to store wealth. Fines don't work for the very rich, they should have to demonstrate that they were actually here for nine months a year in the way tax avoiders have to actually stay somewhere. It should be like tax laws and havens like Jersey.  At least if they lived in London they would be spending money there, and if they don't want to live in our city they will sell up which will help prices. 

There should be a law against non UK residents buying property in London. This is what has pushed the house prices up and there many properties sitting empty whilst working people are paying extortionate rents in the private rent sector. I don't really understand the shared ownership thing and have never been keen on it. Either provide cheap properties for people to buy or social housing for people to rent

There needs to be an education campaign to explain that at present the "right to buy" comes with a ban on using the income from sales to provide replacement housing. At the very least the proceeds of these sales must be ploughed back into social and genuinely affordable housing.

Looking at the replies there are so many well thought out responses. The replies are not theories they are from experience. Please look at the responses and react accordingly. Rethink and encourage those who have responded to take an active roll in London housing problems. These are the problems which are being created by ridiculous policies

My feeling is that the right to buy has fatally undermined the social housing sector, and it cannot be mended unless that is changed. I am very fortunate to live in cooperative housing, it's a lot of work but really genuinely affordable, and the "landlord " is the membership and therefore answerable (as the Management Committee is elected annually). Few people have that opportunity as all the government initiatives to facilitate the initial purchase of a property have ended some years ago. If we had the right to buy, the coop would collapse.

Lots of hot air about helping people find homes no action. Time to stop the talk and do something substantial

At the end of the day "affordable housing" in London is for people who have kids and want to take free housing from the government while genuine working people have to keep paying a ridiculous amount of money to live in a shoe box.

Shared ownership  housing usually has the effect of raising house or sustaining high house prices. So it should not be promoted. We want adequate housing so prices become affordable. Landlord's profits should be regulated.

The main changes that I think are needed in housing (in the UK, but housing problems are particularly acute in London) are: more council owned social housing (so-called "affordable rents" are NOT affordable for a huge number of people); rent control on private renting (still an area of considerable shocking abuse, particularly in London); control on property buying by absentee landlords (whether living within the UK or abroad), particularly "buy -to-let", for which there should be no subsidies, tax or otherwise.

Covid 19 has shown that if HMG believe that the need is great enough money can be found.   Why not pay Landlords a premium for long term investment in residential dwelling at the same time capping the level of rent. 

Residential properties, particularly those sold on any subsidised scheme, should have a covenant attached to the effect that the property can only be resold at the original price plus CPI (accumulative over the period of occupation).  All other profit from the sale will be returned to the tax payers through capital gain tax.  This will immediately stablised house prices and ensure that people buy a property to live in rather than for investment.

I lived in a shared home ownership property which was a big con! The fees are double as you have to pay the housing association solicitor and other fees when buying and selling. We did not get to choose our property we were allocated a set property. The property price was over inflated. The percentage we had to buy was high so expensive mortgage repayments plus expensive rent on portion we did not own. We found that our neighbours were far from working class and in need of housing. All had money which they used to quickly buy the remaining portion then move out and turn into buy to lets! Screening for these subsidised properties is not scrupulous and the housing associations only care that they get their money. A 100% cheap mortgage from the local authority would be better as they would serve the local in need of affordable housing population, not those who pretend have no money then once ensconsed in their cheaper new housing flip it!

Coronavirus has demonstrated that private outdoor space is critical to wellbeing. No affordable or intermediate housing should be built without gardens or generous terraces.

Sadly, the LA and Mayor's idea of 'genuinely affordable' is not affordable for thousands of Londoners. The London Rent certainly is not, shared ownership is OK in principle but in practice is a more expensive option with high hidden costs, and intermediate rent is for the well-off. 

The Mayor and colleagues should be with all possible urgency looking at ways to get goint the conversion of offices into good quality, pandemic-ready, and really genuinely affordable housing. Can't they get owners of redundant offices together with non-cowboy developers or find some creative and go-ahead investors, to give the process a hefty push?

I agree that shared ownership is a scam - for the reasons listed below but also because at this stage we are helping quite well off people live in greater luxury than they might otherwise afford. Take a look at Hackney shared ownership sales - for most 2 bedroom flats they expect an income between £80,000 - £90,000. That's not someone who couldn't afford as home on an open market, that's someone who wants to live near Old street but doesn't want to pay the price. We should not waste the little public money and land available on Shared ownership but on having flats to rent at London Living Rent rate. The key is not to sell them to the renters (as they often do now as a shared ownership type scheme) -  they should allow tenants to have a lease for 10 - 15 - 20 years so they feel secure in their homes. Also, more needs to be done to make renting as acceptable and legally protected as it is in Europe. I have seen nothing done in this respect by any of the labour politicians who spend so much time pointing fingers at other parties rather than actually fighting for better legislation. So many wasted opportuntities.

London homes should not be sold to people whose main residence is abroad. Buyers should be resident in the UK for, say, 6 months - 1 year, before being eligible to purchase. There needs to be ways of preventing the super-rich from putting their money into residences which they don't live in, as if they were banks. This pushes up prices.

Ideas need to be developed to use unoccupied office space, but which must be transformed into good quality housing, to move people (who choose to) into the city centres - with the development of surrounding services such as childcare, schools, doctor's surgeries etc. Maybe some office property owners would sell their properties to the council for £1 if they aren't going to get a profit from renting their office space.

I want to pay more tax to the council which can be used to build/provide social housing. My community charge is low considering the value of my property and my income. It should be raised. There could be exemptions for people of low income whose property value has risen above their own means.  

Inclined to agree with Deadorchid for a start.

We are apparently facing deserted city centres as workers remain working from home. So empty office blocks, closed service shops, less crowded public transport....

How about we use vacated spaces that are suitable for conversion into apartments, or houses, to house not only essential workers, but the homeless, & redundant service industry staff, who likely will become homeless.

And stop building more & more unwanted, unneeded office blocks, improving the air quality of London, reducing noise pollution, and reducing the pressure on precious land resources, and transport, so life is just a little more tolerable for the majority.

The building of social housing is essential to healthy democratic communities. I have been on the "housing waiting list" of my London Borough - the second largest - for 25 years ...