Housing discrimination.
Discussion
I’ve just seen a letter about a local development pre public planning consultation.
amongst other proposals they are building 100 affordable homes aimed at key workers. They give examples of NHS staff, police or care workers citing how they have helped us during the Covid 19 crisis.
Setting aside the morals of using the current crisis to try and influence public opinion is this legal or even possible.
Presumably on the initial sale or rent (it doesn’t actually specify which it is) it would be up to them to allocate the houses as they wish but what about in the future?
If you lose/ change jobs would you have to give up your home?
Is there an enforceable covenant that stops you selling your house to whoever you want?
It seems like a minefield to me.
amongst other proposals they are building 100 affordable homes aimed at key workers. They give examples of NHS staff, police or care workers citing how they have helped us during the Covid 19 crisis.
Setting aside the morals of using the current crisis to try and influence public opinion is this legal or even possible.
Presumably on the initial sale or rent (it doesn’t actually specify which it is) it would be up to them to allocate the houses as they wish but what about in the future?
If you lose/ change jobs would you have to give up your home?
Is there an enforceable covenant that stops you selling your house to whoever you want?
It seems like a minefield to me.
I'm sure there have been numerous cases of developers being told that a certain percentage of houses on any given development have to be "affordable" - so aimed at the lower income public.
Once the development is completed, somehow, though a "mistake" in administration or "forgetfulness" these houses aren't built or far less than mandated.
Off to court where a ridiculously, relatively small fine is issued - easily covered and more so by the fact the entire development can now be sold at the high-end market.
Think housing developers make a lot of promises that are never kept as the fines don't seem to be at a level where they are a worry.
Once the development is completed, somehow, though a "mistake" in administration or "forgetfulness" these houses aren't built or far less than mandated.
Off to court where a ridiculously, relatively small fine is issued - easily covered and more so by the fact the entire development can now be sold at the high-end market.
Think housing developers make a lot of promises that are never kept as the fines don't seem to be at a level where they are a worry.
Not all discrimination is unlawful. A measure that directly or indirectly discriminates against a member of a category protected by the Equalities Act 2010 is unlawful. Otherwise, a stipulation as to who can occupy a property is lawful.
This is not a new thing - medieval Almshouses still exist, and may be reserved to people who fulfil various criteria.
Lack of affordable housing for key workers is a big issue, especially in and near London. Whether housing allocation is the best way to deal with this I do not know.
This is not a new thing - medieval Almshouses still exist, and may be reserved to people who fulfil various criteria.
Lack of affordable housing for key workers is a big issue, especially in and near London. Whether housing allocation is the best way to deal with this I do not know.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 2nd May 09:47
Builders use this angle in order to sway planning permission for their projects. Plenty of land is ‘stocked’ these days, and then planning sought as funding agreed. The law has a stipulation that if you build, I think it’s three, or more, then you have to begin allocating a percentage to GIVE to social housing projects and the local authority, and furthermore, you cannot put these in one specific corner like the old days. It means social housing tenants are interspersed among private house owners, which can sometimes raise tensions.
Affordable housing is usually, from the builders I know, used to sway the council when their plot of land is a little awkward to get planning. There’s less profit in the houses, but not much less, and it means they get planning where throwing on four 5-bed mansions wouldn’t go down well!
Affordable housing is usually, from the builders I know, used to sway the council when their plot of land is a little awkward to get planning. There’s less profit in the houses, but not much less, and it means they get planning where throwing on four 5-bed mansions wouldn’t go down well!
Stoofa said:
I'm sure there have been numerous cases of developers being told that a certain percentage of houses on any given development have to be "affordable" - so aimed at the lower income public.
Once the development is completed, somehow, though a "mistake" in administration or "forgetfulness" these houses aren't built or far less than mandated.
Off to court where a ridiculously, relatively small fine is issued - easily covered and more so by the fact the entire development can now be sold at the high-end market.
Think housing developers make a lot of promises that are never kept as the fines don't seem to be at a level where they are a worry.
Can you point me in the direction where I can research this / case law on the matter to back up the above - while not directly involved in development, I have a few clients who could make millions more in profit by paying a small fine and not building the mandated affordable housing or making the equivalent cash payment for it Once the development is completed, somehow, though a "mistake" in administration or "forgetfulness" these houses aren't built or far less than mandated.
Off to court where a ridiculously, relatively small fine is issued - easily covered and more so by the fact the entire development can now be sold at the high-end market.
Think housing developers make a lot of promises that are never kept as the fines don't seem to be at a level where they are a worry.
Cheers
MDL111 said:
Stoofa said:
I'm sure there have been numerous cases of developers being told that a certain percentage of houses on any given development have to be "affordable" - so aimed at the lower income public.
Once the development is completed, somehow, though a "mistake" in administration or "forgetfulness" these houses aren't built or far less than mandated.
Off to court where a ridiculously, relatively small fine is issued - easily covered and more so by the fact the entire development can now be sold at the high-end market.
Think housing developers make a lot of promises that are never kept as the fines don't seem to be at a level where they are a worry.
Can you point me in the direction where I can research this / case law on the matter to back up the above - while not directly involved in development, I have a few clients who could make millions more in profit by paying a small fine and not building the mandated affordable housing or making the equivalent cash payment for it Once the development is completed, somehow, though a "mistake" in administration or "forgetfulness" these houses aren't built or far less than mandated.
Off to court where a ridiculously, relatively small fine is issued - easily covered and more so by the fact the entire development can now be sold at the high-end market.
Think housing developers make a lot of promises that are never kept as the fines don't seem to be at a level where they are a worry.
Cheers
Breadvan72 said:
Not all discrimination is unlawful. A measure that directly or indirectly discriminates against a member of a category protected by the Equalities Act 2010 is unlawful. otherwise, a stipulation as to who can occupy a property is lawful.
So it's unlawful to not sell a property to someone as they are aged, yet turn that around and it is lawful to stipulate that certain developments are for those over a certain age.An excellent idea to create 'aged ghettos' ?
An interesting one if one partner is either side of the 'discriminatory' 55 or 60 age barrier ?
Breadvan72 said:
This is not a new thing - medieval Almshouses still exist, and may be reserved to people who fulfil various criteria.
We have a small amount of them 'owned' by the church where I live, the 'criteria' is that strict sometimes they struggle to fill them, I think there's 8 in total. Only built in the last century or 2 so certainly not medieval 
like the thinking of some of the population round here Zarco said:
I expect the developer is required to build a percentage of affordable homes under the planning consent.
They are then linking that to key workers for marketing purposes.
+1 They are then linking that to key workers for marketing purposes.
The cynical part of me is saying that there has either been, or likely to be, some local opposition to this development, and so the developer is trying to cash in on the current good feeling towards NHS staff and key workers, in order to make the development seem more acceptable, and put people off voicing any opposition, for fear of looking like a bit of a s
t.Once the development is built, they will simply sell to whoever turns up with the money first, regardless of what job they do.
speedyguy said:
Breadvan72 said:
Not all discrimination is unlawful. A measure that directly or indirectly discriminates against a member of a category protected by the Equalities Act 2010 is unlawful. otherwise, a stipulation as to who can occupy a property is lawful.
So it's unlawful to not sell a property to someone as they are aged, yet turn that around and it is lawful to stipulate that certain developments are for those over a certain age.An excellent idea to create 'aged ghettos' ?
An interesting one if one partner is either side of the 'discriminatory' 55 or 60 age barrier ?
Breadvan72 said:
This is not a new thing - medieval Almshouses still exist, and may be reserved to people who fulfil various criteria.
We have a small amount of them 'owned' by the church where I live, the 'criteria' is that strict sometimes they struggle to fill them, I think there's 8 in total. Only built in the last century or 2 so certainly not medieval like the thinking of some of the population round here The foundation that built the Almshouses may date from the C19, or it may date from earlier but replaced earlier houses in the C19. In Ewelme, near where I live, there are C15 almshouses that are still in use. They and the village school were paid for by Geoffrey Chaucer's granddaughter (medieval social mobility - Chaucer's dad was a merchant, he became Court poet, his son was a Knight, his granddaughter was a Duchess).
Here in the Yorkshire Dales National Park we have or did have section 106 houses.
Only available to residents of the pPark at discounted price, the idea was good , available for young families etc in an area where houses are high priced and wages low.
However no lender would lend against them even Skipton BS. The restriction could not be lifted so future sales we controlled
It was good in principle but flawed in practice.
Only available to residents of the pPark at discounted price, the idea was good , available for young families etc in an area where houses are high priced and wages low.
However no lender would lend against them even Skipton BS. The restriction could not be lifted so future sales we controlled
It was good in principle but flawed in practice.
There were three stories I picked up on when a similar question was asked a few months back.
It told about developers promising affordable housing and then going back to the council saying "Sorry - not possible, makes our profit margin bad".
Here are three I found:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/af...
https://www.newstatesman.com/2017/07/developers-ar...
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2018/m...
It told about developers promising affordable housing and then going back to the council saying "Sorry - not possible, makes our profit margin bad".
Here are three I found:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/af...
https://www.newstatesman.com/2017/07/developers-ar...
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2018/m...
daytona355 said:
Builders use this angle in order to sway planning permission for their projects. Plenty of land is ‘stocked’ these days, and then planning sought as funding agreed. The law has a stipulation that if you build, I think it’s three, or more, then you have to begin allocating a percentage to GIVE to social housing projects and the local authority, and furthermore, you cannot put these in one specific corner like the old days. It means social housing tenants are interspersed among private house owners, which can sometimes raise tensions.
Affordable housing is usually, from the builders I know, used to sway the council when their plot of land is a little awkward to get planning. There’s less profit in the houses, but not much less, and it means they get planning where throwing on four 5-bed mansions wouldn’t go down well!
I'm a developer and I'm sorry but the above is somewhat off the mark and in some points just wrong.Affordable housing is usually, from the builders I know, used to sway the council when their plot of land is a little awkward to get planning. There’s less profit in the houses, but not much less, and it means they get planning where throwing on four 5-bed mansions wouldn’t go down well!
We don't use it as an angle to sway planning, most councils have an affordable housing requirement set out in policy and provided for by S106, the exact makeup of the houses and teneture will be negotiated with the council and based on local housing need. Also the councils generally don't have a clue on cost! A rented tow bed in the midlands we'd get circa £65k for it but shared equity(maybe tied to key workers) would be nearer £100k
Pepper potting of affordable housing is not as key now so they can be grouped together again to some extent.
The real issues with affordable housing which has seen an increase in numbers of larger properties is that they are calculated on plot numbers ie if you build say 100 units the council want between 20 and 40 (these are normally 2/3 bed) if you therefore built the rest as say 2 beds you maybe able to fit far more numbers on so the council then want more affordable, the finances then don't work!
Really the whole system needs scrapping and councils should just charge an area of house based tax on new build and leave it up to them, if they set it too high nothing will get built, lower and everyone will want to build in their area...
There is ALOT more to S106 and affordable housing and most councils don't understand the sums behind it and how there decisions will effect building.
An also no one ever ever ever stocks land! People may have options or own land that may get planning but as soon as planning is granted the building starts when the consent is actionable.(thats another issue!)
I live on a conservation estate part of a deer park owned by Broad Land Trust and further down the lane are 8 houses set aside for the farm workers years ago that worked the land.
The trust took over these places (listed properties) again for employees of said Trust. Last year two were sold off to the public, times change.
The new ones proposed will likely be under a covenent for a year so and then sold off to anyone, the consequences for doing so are minimal.
What exactly is the worry here though..?
Edited for spelling.
The trust took over these places (listed properties) again for employees of said Trust. Last year two were sold off to the public, times change.
The new ones proposed will likely be under a covenent for a year so and then sold off to anyone, the consequences for doing so are minimal.
What exactly is the worry here though..?
Edited for spelling.
Edited by A1VDY on Saturday 2nd May 10:37
People complain about Socialism, but the postwar growth in social housing, and the decline of social housing since 1979, are big things, and now we see the problem caused by shortage of affordable housing. Asking developers to solve the problem is not the answer. Yes, some social housing was poorly planned, and instead of the truly horrible old slums we got sink estates, but that was not and is not inevitable.
For lockdown fun, go into your local authority's Local Plan, and allied to that, Strategic Housing Allocation Plan (or a version thereof) and it will set out the affordable housing polices.
There will probably be a blanket policy, and then polices for particular areas or even allocated sites.
"Affordable" is a moot point. It can be just 20% discount to Market Value, or highly prescriptive and indeed, aimed at specific key workers. It can also be targeted at housing trusts, who will take a proportion of units, usually the ones half the size and round by the bins, which go into their managed portfolio.
A pootle through the Planning section of the council website should provide what you need. As a shortcut, if there is already a planning permission for your site, go into the documentation when you search for it, and there will probably be a planning officer's report, which will set out the relevant polices.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff