|
Deva Link
26,888 posts
114 months
|
Dave_ST220 said: Trustmeimadoctor said: the new site we are buying on 83 plots iirc no social a few others we looked at had no social on either Love to know how they have achieved that one, who's the developer & what site? New build with no social? Good luck. They'll sell what they can quickly while quietly negotiating a deal to sell the remaineder to a housing association. 
|
|
|
Dave_ST220
7,722 posts
74 months
|
Deva Link said: Dave_ST220 said: Trustmeimadoctor said: the new site we are buying on 83 plots iirc no social a few others we looked at had no social on either Love to know how they have achieved that one, who's the developer & what site? New build with no social? Good luck. They'll sell what they can quickly while quietly negotiating a deal to sell the remaineder to a housing association. But if rules state there MUST be a social aspect from day 1 misselling of property?
|
|
|
monthefish
15,709 posts
100 months
|
Dave_ST220 said: Trustmeimadoctor said: the new site we are buying on 83 plots iirc no social a few others we looked at had no social on either Love to know how they have achieved that one, who's the developer & what site? New build with no social? Good luck. A local developer in this area managed that, by arguing that his 'social housing' quota was achieved by means of a block of flats he was building elsewhere (about 3 miles away).
|
|
|
Dave_ST220
7,722 posts
74 months
|
monthefish said: Dave_ST220 said: Trustmeimadoctor said: the new site we are buying on 83 plots iirc no social a few others we looked at had no social on either Love to know how they have achieved that one, who's the developer & what site? New build with no social? Good luck. A local developer in this area managed that, by arguing that his 'social housing' quota was achieved by means of a block of flats he was building elsewhere (about 3 miles away). I did speak to a developer about this who said something similar, however I wouldn't trust a developer on a site that was not 100% finished & all sold tbh.
|
|
|
miniman
16,001 posts
131 months
|
Our village has the typical 1960s approach to provision of the kahn slice, with a cluster of them at one end of the village, which is now referred to as "that" area of the village. The village has two playgrounds, one at "that" end and one at the other. The playground in the badlands is continually vandalised and then repaired by the Parish Council only to be vandalised again. However we keep repairing it so that the ferral kids don't decamp to the brand new playground elsewhere.
It's quite a strange choice, I guess - a borderline no-go area made up entirely of social housing, or interspersing social housing amongst private housing in an attempt to dilute the effect and potentially socially engineer out the problem.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Munter
23,672 posts
110 months
|
Social Housing full rent = avoid
Social housing part rent part buy = better than private rentals.
As a part rent part buy tenant, you have to get a mortgage, you have to be employed, you have to provide references etc.
The only trouble in our street comes from the privately rented properties. All the part rent - part buy houses are looked after and the occupants don't want to cause trouble.
So it's not "social housing" you need to avoid. It's 100% rent housing (be it private or Housing Association). That's where the trouble is.
|
|
|
Dave_ST220
7,722 posts
74 months
|
miniman said: It's quite a strange choice, I guess - a borderline no-go area made up entirely of social housing, or interspersing social housing amongst private housing in an attempt to dilute the effect and potentially socially engineer out the problem. Or just scrap the whole idea of giving lazy  s something for nothing for them to trash? How radical would that be.
|
|
|
miniman
16,001 posts
131 months
|
Dave_ST220 said: miniman said: It's quite a strange choice, I guess - a borderline no-go area made up entirely of social housing, or interspersing social housing amongst private housing in an attempt to dilute the effect and potentially socially engineer out the problem. Or just scrap the whole idea of giving lazy s something for nothing for them to trash? How radical would that be. Works perfectly for me.
|
|
|
russ_a
1,385 posts
80 months
|
We used to rent (private) in the cheap seats on a new build estate a few years ago just after the estate was built.
It started off fine as most of the houses were owner occupied however, after a couple of years the BTL mob had got them all and it went down hill fast. Police being called out at all hours, fights, visitors blocking drive and garage.
I will now never buy anywhere near the cheap seats again! Though I do agree that new estates should be forced to have a mixture of housing. As this is a better solution that council estate ghettos IMHO
|
|
|
Soovy
31,948 posts
140 months
|
russ_a said: this is a better solution that council estate ghettos IMHO No it isn't. They should fence scum into their own areas. I pay a LOT of money to live somewhere nice, and I work f king hard for it. The Council have recently housed a family of feral scum at the other end of our road. They've already been barred from the local pub (owned by an East End ex boxer hardcase who "had a word" with them) and from the local shop, for stealing and are always causing noise and trouble. It's called "pepperpotting" - the idea is that if you house scum in a nice area they'll become nice themselves. All it does is ruin it for everyone. They should all be left to fester in their own vileness in areas well away from the rest of us.
|
|
|
Dave_ST220
7,722 posts
74 months
|
Soovy said: No it isn't. They should fence scum into their own areas. I pay a LOT of money to live somewhere nice, and I work f king hard for it. The Council have recently housed a family of feral scum at the other end of our road. They've already been barred from the local pub (owned by an East End ex boxer hardcase who "had a word" with them) and from the local shop, for stealing and are always causing noise and trouble. It's called "pepperpotting" - the idea is that if you house scum in a nice area they'll become nice themselves. They should all be left to fester in their own vileness in areas well away from the rest of us.  All it does is ruin it for everyone. +1 Exactly how I feel right now.
|
|
|
garyhun
13,969 posts
97 months
|
Decent, hard working, tax paying people really do get totally f ked over in this country. I've posted a couple of threads in the last couple of days about moving. The current plan of living in Norfolk, in a converted barn, in a village with no estates, within 30 minutes of Snetterton gets more attractive with every post I read in this thread. We really do need a revolution and a new form of government in this country.
|
|
|
tim0409
719 posts
28 months
|
russ_a said: We used to rent (private) in the cheap seats on a new build estate a few years ago just after the estate was built.
It started off fine as most of the houses were owner occupied however, after a couple of years the BTL mob had got them all and it went down hill fast. Police being called out at all hours, fights, visitors blocking drive and garage.
I will now never buy anywhere near the cheap seats again! Though I do agree that new estates should be forced to have a mixture of housing. As this is a better solution that council estate ghettos IMHO But is it a better solution? Why should honest, hard working, respectable peoples' lives be blighted by the anti-social behaviour of a sub-set of society? The solution is more complex than just lumping everybody together - this just results in causing tension and enforcing stereotypes. As a social experiment it has failed.
|
|
|
Dave_ST220
7,722 posts
74 months
|
Too f king right. One reason we will move, what I can't see can't piss me off EVERY f kING DAY!!! Life is too short to get angry but a revolution to kick the work shy scum into touch would see me right at the front.
|
|
|
Dave_ST220
7,722 posts
74 months
|
Out of interest, who introduced this rule? Do I need to ask?! Social experiment which will never work and has not worked, EVER. Stop benefits, don't work? Starve to death then you idle . Off for lunch now, too much anger!!! Ironically the film "falling down" was on last night 
|
|
|
Sam_68
9,939 posts
114 months
|
Dan_1981 said: I understand that these days developers are finding it easier to get planning permission for large new estates if they dedicate some of the housing to "social" housing? Not so much a matter of 'easier' as 'essential'. Local Authorities have policies that force us to provide 'affordable' (social) housing. No affordable housing = no planning consent, simple as that. Dan_1981 said: Does anyone have any direct experience of this? Lots, from the developer side. Dan_1981 said: However a different developer is currently building on the dge of the estate - smaller, houses which I am led to believe are going to be social housing? ...Can I find out what percentage of the housing is dedicated to social? Ironically, for a given number of bedrooms, social housing house types tend to be bigger than the open market ones, due to the design standards required by the Registered Social Landlords (Housing Associations) to obtain grant funding. You can find out easily enough by looking up the planning application for the development on your local authority's Planning website, or by speaking to the Planning Officer responsible. Dan_1981 said: Is the old new estate going to be devalued massivly in the next few years and end up being surrounded by smack dens? Despite the doom-mongers, no, not significantly. Overall 'quality' of social housing tenants varies, but it tends to be linked to the general tone of the area, because the majority of tenants will be drawn from a quite local population. So affordable housing in a Birmingham ghetto may well be filled with drug addicts and scrotes; affordable housing in a Cotswold village will more likely be filled with basically nice, respectable people who can't afford to get on the normal housing ladder for whatever reason (though that will doubtless include a percentage of unemployed/unemployable and single mums). Developers don't usually develop mixed tenure sites in the really grim areas, because sales values would in any case be low, but where we've developed in 'marginal' city centre locations, we've not found that the inclusion of even a very high proportion of affordable housing has had a significant negative effect on the oprn market houses on the site, either initially or at resale. miniman said: Any more than 12 properties on a development = social housing must be present. There is no such fixed threshold. It varies from Authority to Authority (and sometimes on geographic location within an Authority), according to locally adopted policy.
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,888 posts
114 months
|
It can happen anywhere though - the house behind us has been rented out for the entire 20yrs we've lived here.
First 10 years or so was a solicitor and his family who was fine. Then they moved out and the house has had a pretty high turnover of tenants. It's always that house that has the big fireworks on bonfire night, the noisy barbecues on summer evening and, horror of horrors, they've now got one of those big trampolines in the garden!
|
|
|
jdw1234
4,286 posts
84 months
|
monthefish said: Dave_ST220 said: Trustmeimadoctor said: the new site we are buying on 83 plots iirc no social a few others we looked at had no social on either Love to know how they have achieved that one, who's the developer & what site? New build with no social? Good luck. A local developer in this area managed that, by arguing that his 'social housing' quota was achieved by means of a block of flats he was building elsewhere (about 3 miles away). That is what the Candy Brothers did with 1 Hyde Park I believe.
|
|
|
scotal
8,750 posts
148 months
|
Soovy said: I pay a LOT of money to live somewhere nice, If you live where I think you live, its an peaceful oasis in a desert of scum...... in fact the scum were there first. You're on their turf old son.
|
|
|
monthefish
15,709 posts
100 months
|
jdw1234 said: monthefish said: Dave_ST220 said: Trustmeimadoctor said: the new site we are buying on 83 plots iirc no social a few others we looked at had no social on either Love to know how they have achieved that one, who's the developer & what site? New build with no social? Good luck. A local developer in this area managed that, by arguing that his 'social housing' quota was achieved by means of a block of flats he was building elsewhere (about 3 miles away). That is what the Candy Brothers did with 1 Hyde Park I believe. Maybe it's more common/legal than I thought. (I thought the local chap here had done it with an envelope of 'used' notes to the planning dept)
|
|
