Behind the Headline
Have you noticed how stories about the property market are like feathers in the wind – blown this way and that, depending on the whim of a particular journalist, estate agent or PR person? One minute the housing market is careering dangerously out of control, the next growth has ground to a halt, with us on the verge of another crash.
Those of us who work in the sector know the reality, which is that the market – in Norfolk at any rate – is pretty stable. Prices are edging up year on year, but not in any dramatic way; in short, normality seems to have returned. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make for a good headline, and so you are unlikely to see it screaming from a front page any time soon.
Yes, you will see blips and variances from month to month, but this has always been the case. For families, the summer holidays are a time when entertaining the kids is a higher priority than looking for a new home; for those of us whose children have flown the nest, September is when we can enjoy uncrowded beaches ourselves.
October will see a bounce-back, as people wake up to the fact that they need to be pushing on with a move if they want to be in for Christmas. Stand by for more short-term headlines contradicting what you might be reading this week.
No-one gets on the back of a media bandwagon faster than a politician, and the party conference season is already bringing us policy promises relating to housing, from the so-called ‘mansion tax’ to David Cameron’s idea of building new houses to offer to young people (or at any rate, the under 40s) at a 20 per cent discount.
Whilst this last wheeze has made for some good media, especially for those who still have adult children living at home, when you look at the detail of this particular proposal (or rather, the lack of it), many questions are raised.
What is to stop speculators funding the purchase of these subsidised homes, only for them to be resold on at full market value? Will they have to be reserved in perpetuity for buyers of the same type? Will they have to be resold at the same level of discount? And who will decide on these valuations? The legal profession must be rubbing their hands with glee.
There are other concerns. Being able to build these discounted houses will mean corners have to be cut; it seems that they will be permitted to be less energy-efficient. Who thinks that is a good idea? Quite apart from our commitment to preserving the environment, why are we suggesting lumbering these buyers with crippling energy bills?
One final point: these homes will not contribute to the Community Infrastructure Levy, which helps local communities assimilate new housing, nor will their construction lead to any new social housing for those who need an affordable rented home.
Too often, a policy which creates a good headline falls down when you look at the detail. It is too much to hope that this will alter the behaviour of our politicians as the election approaches, sadly.