You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Fears over a no-deal Brexit’s impact on the property market dominate the pages of today’s newspapers
In the news
As the implications of a no-deal Brexit continue to emerge, the spotlight yesterday turned to the housing market with Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, briefing ministers of a 35% house price crash as a result.
If you’re thinking “well at least that would rebalance the market a bit”, think again – homeowners would be plunged into negative equity and higher mortgage rates would freeze first-time buyers out of the market, says the report in The Times.
Meanwhile, the Financial Times publishes a long read asking if property is still a good investment, with a large focus on Brexit.
Elsewhere, the government published a series of technical notices on the potential outcome of a ‘no deal’ yesterday – with some surrounding procurement, mergers and EU funding which may be of relevance to the sector.
In non-Brexit news, the Local Government Chronicle has the somewhat depressing news that councils have spent £4bn on redundancies since 2010.
The Guardian publishes a letter for housing association figures calling for more accessible housing.
The Telegraph writes that soaring stamp duty has put the cost of moving house up to £12,000.
In local papers, the East London and West Essex Guardian reports on the number of families in temporary accommodation moved out of Waltham Forest, Worcester News covers the roll-out of the housing association Right to Buy pilot in the area, the South Wales Argus writes about plans to build new council homes in Caerphilly, and the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald tells its readers about new investment in existing council homes locally.
And if you’re after something with a more international feel, have a gander at this Reuters long read which assesses China’s failure to build a market of professional rented housing. Not a problem we’d ever have in the West, eh readers?
On social media
No one seems to like housing minister Kit Malthouse’s plan for a new ‘private social rent’ market:
Anything offered at below market rent requires some form of subsidy, whether via the planning system or capital funding. RPs re-invest surpluses in existing properties & expanding new supply. What incentive would there be for a private sector involvement? t.co/LmOUAT8lT1
— Jonathan Layzell (@JLStonewater)Anything offered at below market rent requires some form of subsidy, whether via the planning system or capital funding. RPs re-invest surpluses in existing properties & expanding new supply. What incentive would there be for a private sector involvement? https://t.co/LmOUAT8lT1
— Jonathan Layzell (@JLStonewater) September 14, 2018
Let’s add more tenures to an already crowded and confusing space!
— martinfilleryredloft (@martinfilleryr1)Let’s add more tenures to an already crowded and confusing space!
— martinfilleryredloft (@martinfilleryr1) September 13, 2018
What an absolute joke. RSLs have sufficient incentive to provide quality housing and services whilst achieving surpluses to reinvest in their communities. Transparency and accountability results in innovation; chasing profits does not. @kitmalthouse
— Harry McKeown (@HousingHarry)What an absolute joke. RSLs have sufficient incentive to provide quality housing and services whilst achieving surpluses to reinvest in their communities. Transparency and accountability results in innovation; chasing profits does not. @kitmalthouse
— Harry McKeown (@HousingHarry) September 13, 2018
— Hannah Slater (@hannahslater87) — Hannah Slater (@hannahslater87) September 13, 2018
No idea. Doesn’t add up. Won’t work. Next housing minister please.
— Renown Estate Agents (@renownestates)No idea. Doesn't add up. Won't work. Next housing minister please.
— Renown Estate Agents (@renownestates) September 13, 2018