Would this annoy you? (snobbery content!)

[raf_gti]

About 18 months ago we were one of the first ones to buy a house on our estate, the estate was being built by a very reputable builder and was mainly going to consist of very nice 4 bed family homes with a small % of 3 beds.

Our house is in phase one which consists of ~35 houses and everything is hunky dory.

The problem is is that with the downturn phase two has gone from being more of the same to a far higher percentage of shared ownership/housing association homes, these are all two bed terrace style houses and have dramtaically changed the character of the estate.

Would you be pissed off with this? After all if we wanted to buy a house in an estate like that then that is what we would have done.

I'm I being a snob?

[ShadownINja]

It could have a detrimental effect on the value of your property, I would imagine, even if the people who did move in were nice neighbours.

[Marf]

Yes, you are.

My sister and I both have shared ownership properties, and neither of us are dole bludging white lightning drinking chavs

[The jiffle king]

I think thats the way a lot of estates are built. Get some nice cars and houses on the estate first, make it look desireable and then flood it with 2 beds and flats.....

[raf_gti]

Marf said:

Yes, you are.

My sister and I both have shared ownership properties, and neither of us are dole bludging white lightning drinking chavs

I don't have a problem with the shared ownership as such, in fact I'd be eligable for myself under the key workers scheme.

What I object to is that the estate is now going to change dramatically from what it was originally intended to be, what was going to be a spacious, open estate is now going to be packed full of far less attractive housing which will not only increase traffic but ultimatley make it a far less relaxing place to live.

[f-fuxake]

Yes.
Take the pop bottles back and buy a shepherd's hut half way up a Scottish mountain where you can bask in your self importance.
No irony smilie necessary

[TheCarpetCleaner]

Social housing tenants - yes I would understand your concern. There are newbuild areas near me that have sold out to social housing as nobody is buying newbuilds here at the moment, and some of the areas are becoming crime ridden stholes overnight.

Shared ownership schemes? Just normal people desperate to get on the ladder in any way possible.

I personally don't care about home ownership, having seen what got taken away from my grandparents when they get seriously ill I really don't see the point in having a property for old age.

I rent privately so I can move if wker neighbours move in, or if I decide to move area for work or I just don't like it here anymore.

I hope I meet your approval and you read this post, what with me not being a homeowner and all. I will stay away from your road, lest I lower the tone with my van

[rhinochopig]

Oh come, he does have a point - snobbery opinions aside. He bought on the understanding that the scheme would be made up of a certain type of housing. I'd certainly be pissed off, as I'd have ended up paying over the odds for my house as it will certainly lower the value of the first phase housing.

Sometimes PH amazes me - dozens of back slapping posts because someone has just spent hundreds/thousands of pounds on a watch/pen/wine/art/cigar and yet the OP get trashed for complaining about being mis-sold a house.

Edited by rhinochopig on Sunday 4th October 16:23

[Marf]

rhinochopig said:

yet the OP get trashed for complaining about being mis-sold a house.

Is it mis-selling if the developer only decided to put in a "far higher percentage of shared ownership/housing association homes" as a result of the economic climate and some time after building the original properties?

If there was a clause in the purchase contract which bound the developer to build only "very nice 4 bed family homes with a small % of 3 beds" then I could understand a claim of mis-selling.

[f-fuxake]

People are people however they come about their abode.
The gist I got from the OP's post was a bit self indulgent and verging on arrogance.
Just my tuppenceworth.
Glocko
A Renter (of quite a nice place ;-))

[rhinochopig]

Marf said:

rhinochopig said:

yet the OP get trashed for complaining about being mis-sold a house.

Is it mis-selling if the developer only decided to put in a "far higher percentage of shared ownership/housing association homes" as a result of the economic climate and some time after building the original properties?

If there was a clause in the purchase contract which bound the developer to build only "very nice 4 bed family homes with a small % of 3 beds" then I could understand a claim of mis-selling.

I wasn't using it the legal sense. But if I'd gone to look at a scheme and been shown plans for a multi-phase build showing a certain percentage of house types, my purchase decision would largely be predicated on a) whether I liked the house, and b) whether I liked the estate. If it subsequently changed, I would be extremely pissed off as a) it would lower my house value, and would b) have a very different demographic - one that I'd not signed up to live in.

[Technonotice]

All modern new build estates reek of chav. Even the ones with the nicer 4 bed houses have horrid 2 beds round the corner.

Sorry

[a boardman]

It might of been a planning condition that the house could only be built if a % of them where shared ownership/housing association homes.

[rhinochopig]

a boardman said:

It might of been a planning condition that the house could only be built if a % of them where shared ownership/housing association homes.

It usually is these days - I was conned into sitting on the planning committee on the Parish Council a few years back - and it was typically a stipulation of the county council that a certain percentage of any new builds were "affordable housing". That was in the Peaks national park though.

[NiceCupOfTea]

I was under the impression that in order to "get away with" building these large estates, the developers had to specify a certain pertentage of social housing. That's certainly how it happened on one that was built nearby here that is now a crime hotspot...

I do sympathise with the OP.

[bimsb6]

wait until the rented units are turned into multi occupancy ,then it really will go to st .

[Vron]

I'm currently looking for a property and have looked at a few new builds. I have been told that new regulations state if a developer is building more than 14 houses then they have to add social housing on to the site as well.

I looked at one development and it had a mixed variety of houses including small apartment blocks that I presume were the social housing. There was a brand new Co-Op at the entrance to the estate and it had the inevitable Chavs hanging round. There was also a brand new play area designed for small children and that too had Chavs hanging round on it - whether they lived in the affordable housing on the development or not I do not know. Anyway, I would not choose to buy a house on there now and it has made me wary of new builds incase the site gets further developed in the way the OP mentioned.

Edited by Vron on Sunday 4th October 16:52

[Technonotice]

I live in a former council estate. Practically all of the houses are now private and the 3 beds are worth north of 400k.

There are a few blocks but a distinct lack of chavs from what I have seen. All the neighbours are pretty friendly as well.

I much prefer it to the sub-urban hell holes that plague this country like the scum who live there.

[Deva Link]

Vron said:

I'm currently looking for a property and have looked at a few new builds. I have been told that new regulations state if a developer is building more than 14 houses then they have to add social housing on to the site as well.

There certainly are rules like that but what the OP is saying is that many more such properties have been built.


A small estate was dropped onto a triangular shaped site, bordered on 2 sides by roads that are part of the established village, on the edge of our village a few years ago and there was a lot of concern about parking.

The builders had loads of parking spaces on the original plans and then, once underway, applied to reduce them a couple of times so they could include more dwellings. Double whammy. Upshot is that the two bordering roads are now jammed with cars making navigating those roads and their junctions extremely hazardous.

[koenig999]

Councils want 30-40% of a new estate to be affordable housing, so they have somewhere for the rusty Ford Transit rear axles and leatherette sofas with the springs sticking out to be placed as conceptual art.

I am afraid you are stuck with it.

Koenig