Right or wrong? Social housing on new builds

[Mark83]

I’ve worked for a HA for quite a while, first in housing management and now in the development side. We build cheap rented units through to seven figure private sale units and everything in the middle.

Problem tenants - people seem to think HAs do nothing. Quite the opposite but their hands are tied. I’ve personally presented cases of ASB with evidence backed by the local authority and police to a judge but the judge ruled in the alleged perpetrator’s favour. Only a judge can evict a tenant. Normally a mandatory ground such as rent arrears is relied upon as the judge has no discretion. That said, I remember once case I was in court for where a judge advised a tenant in court to counter claim disrepair and adjourned the case. We were livid. Give the judge a sob story and they might buy it. Going to court on a discretionary ground runs a high chance of failure and costs.

I need to point out that I’ve also met some amazing tenants and got them back on their feet. Many look after their homes.

I’d love to recharge some tenants for their mistreating of the units but how do you recoup money from those in society with little or no disposable income? There are ways but rarely a good option.

The s106 dictates a lot and the tenure splits in new development. The Council hold the aces up their sleeves as they sign off the planning.

I’ve certainly had my eyes open working in this sector and see much that has been discussed in this thread first hand.

[Dog Star]

CPWilliams said:

If you don't mix it, you risk creating ghettos.

No - they create their own ghettos, and if they want to do that and live like pigs in st then they can knock themselves out, just stay away from me.I'm pretty sure that if you gave the majority of the people in the UK a free home then they'd look after it, and if you gave it them in a st state they'd clean it up. Not council folk.

[anonymous-user]

Funny thing is, I work with lots of young people who will only consider buying a new build. Not sure if it is part of the new phone every year and new lease car every two years but it has to be a new build. I honestly don't think any of them would have a clue how to use a roller let alone anything more complicated.

So they scrape together their 5% deposit for their help to buy mortgage and buy a new build, wonder what percentage of them investigate or even realise that a percentage of the properties will be for social housing?

I looked at buying an investment property on a new build and realised it wasn't for me when I spotted the social housing properties with the uncut grass and washing machine in the front garden.

[amoeba]

CraigyMc said:

I grew up in a council house. My parents still live in it, having bought it from the council years ago.

People have to live somewhere, so you really are asking the question:
(A) Do you want "council" to be on private estates, or
(B) Do you want "council" to live in a ghetto.

A is a crap choice, but since it's better than B, I choose A.

What Craig said. It is a crap solution, but definitely better than hideous ghetto estates that amplify criminality.

I do believe 'problem' tenants will get moved on if they get complained about enough, so the solution is to complain alot. Does another know if this works in practice?

[Sheepshanks]

Joey Deacon said:

Funny thing is, I work with lots of young people who will only consider buying a new build. Not sure if it is part of the new phone every year and new lease car every two years but it has to be a new build. I honestly don't think any of them would have a clue how to use a roller let alone anything more complicated.

I wish my kids had bought new-builds - they both bought late 60's nightmares!


I do feel sorry for the people in nice detached houses that used to be on the edge of our village. A new estate was dropped onto the field behind them and the social housing very kindly located out of the way at the back, with their own little park (already a right mess) - right behind those existing detached houses.

One thing I find strange is the kids go in and out of the houses via the windows!

[BRISTOL86]

We are looking at moving at the moment and it’s the reason I’ve copletely eliminated a new build from consideration.

We’re old before our time and have grown very accustomed to living in a street of mainly older folks and the peace and quiet that brings. Just wouldn’t risk it in a mixed development where there’s council housing

[troika]

BRISTOL86 said:

We are looking at moving at the moment and it’s the reason I’ve copletely eliminated a new build from consideration.

We’re old before our time and have grown very accustomed to living in a street of mainly older folks and the peace and quiet that brings. Just wouldn’t risk it in a mixed development where there’s council housing

Makes total sense. Why anyone would risk having potential issues and an unsaleable house I really don’t know.

[anonymous-user]

troika said:

BRISTOL86 said:

We are looking at moving at the moment and it’s the reason I’ve copletely eliminated a new build from consideration.

We’re old before our time and have grown very accustomed to living in a street of mainly older folks and the peace and quiet that brings. Just wouldn’t risk it in a mixed development where there’s council housing

Makes total sense. Why anyone would risk having potential issues and an unsaleable house I really don’t know.

Because they can't face lifting a paint brush or want to buy a house with a 5% deposit.

[Zetec-S]

troika said:

CPWilliams said:

If you don't mix it, you risk creating ghettos.

I spent 5 years in Toulouse (Airbus), and the banlieues had socioeconomic problems unlike anything you'd see in the UK; problems which were quite deliberately ignored by the authorities

I empathises with the points raised though

I can only imagine. If we accept that there will always be issues, what is wrong with keeping the issues contained to one place rather than allowing them to infiltrate everywhere?

Creating ghetto's is not the solution. Plenty of people require social housing through no fault of their own, by lumping everyone who can't afford to pay their way into one big "District 13" style ghetto would make life even harder for some of the most vulnerable people in society.

It's a problem with our society and the legal/social system in this country, we're too soft on antisocial behaviour. Dealing more harshly with the troublemaking minority is what's needed.

We live on a fairly nice new build estate, with some social housing dotted around. It's easy to assume that the shabbier looking places, with crap strewn across untidy front gardens, belong to social housing tenants, but I also see this with homes I know for a fact are owned/occupied privately. My parents live in a nice area on the edge of the New Forest, where the cheapest 2 bed homes are still at least £300k. Yet their neighbour's (who both work full time in decent jobs) front lawn looks like the African savannah. And their kids are no more or less feral than the social housing lot who live near us.

[BRISTOL86]

Joey Deacon said:

Because they can't face lifting a paint brush or want to buy a house with a 5% deposit.

Plenty of housing that isn’t ‘brand new’ that’s looked after and decorated to an excellent standard though. It’s not like ALL ‘used’ housing needs gutting.

And it’s not like you can only buy a new build with a 5% deposit. We got on the ladder with 5% and ours was built in 1965!

[Sheepshanks]

BRISTOL86 said:

We are looking at moving at the moment and it’s the reason I’ve copletely eliminated a new build from consideration.

We’re old before our time and have grown very accustomed to living in a street of mainly older folks and the peace and quiet that brings. Just wouldn’t risk it in a mixed development where there’s council housing

The street can change though. We live in the same road as the village school and at one point none of the 22 houses in our road had any kids living at home. Many of the houses had just one adult occupant - some had bought like that, as the houses weren't affordable to typical young families.

But now the final occupant has either died or just moved elsewhere. Prices have softened a bit too and that's brought the houses into back reach of young families and there are several of them moved in.

Oddly a common factor of the young families is they all seem to own a van - I know it caused arguments on PH, but there's no getting away from the fact that it takes the neighbourhood down a notch. We had a long period where, out of school hours there would be no vehicles parked on our road at all. Very unusual these days.

[amoeba]

Joey Deacon said:

Because they can't face lifting a paint brush or want to buy a house with a 5% deposit.

Because they dont realise;
- new houses command a premium
- new houses are build poorly
- new houses always seem to have problems
- new houses always have undesireables on the estate
- new houses have tiny rooms and tiny gardens

To the young new = trendy.

[budgie smuggler]

I thought it was a good idea until I lived in one. A newbuild estate in a nice area, perfect for commuters to London. Except they filled half of it with social housing.

The main problem is that a lot of the social housing tenants do not work, hence starting a party on Monday morning at 3 or 4 AM is no problem to them.

We had constant drug dealing problems, stty (literally) mattresses being left in the communal bins which then means the bin men won't collect ANY of the estates rubbish, constant thefts from the bike lockups, stoned/drunk/high people ringing all the bells at any time of the day or night after they'd locked themselves out, stty leaking broken chav cars being left in people's allocated spaces, peoples kids being taken away by police, glass ashtrays chucked out of the window, cigarette butts left every where, constant stink of ganja (and I used to be a toker so it doesn't bother me much, but it really was constant all day every day).

I know these incidents all seem really minor, and they are really, but was so depressing every day finding some new problem when you got home from work. Something new every day. It really was a nightmare TBH, I'm so glad I got out when I did.

Also feel bad for a couple in the social housing who did work (the only flat out of 9 AFAIK).

[BRISTOL86]

budgie smuggler said:

I thought it was a good idea until I lived in one. A newbuild estate in a nice area, perfect for commuters to London. Except they filled half of it with social housing.

The main problem is that a lot of the social housing tenants do not work, hence starting a party on Monday morning at 3 or 4 AM is no problem to them.

We had constant drug dealing problems, stty (literally) mattresses being left in the communal bins which then means the bin men won't collect ANY of the estates rubbish, constant thefts from the bike lockups, stoned/drunk/high people ringing all the bells at any time of the day or night after they'd locked themselves out, stty leaking broken chav cars being left in people's allocated spaces, peoples kids being taken away by police, glass ashtrays chucked out of the window, cigarette butts left every where, constant stink of ganja (and I used to be a toker so it doesn't bother me much, but it really was constant all day every day).

I know these incidents all seem really minor, and they are really, but was so depressing every day finding some new problem when you got home from work. Something new every day. It really was a nightmare TBH, I'm so glad I got out when I did.

Also feel bad for a couple in the social housing who did work (the only flat out of 9 AFAIK).

Minor?! That’s literally my idea of living hell.

[budgie smuggler]

BRISTOL86 said:

Minor?! That’s literally my idea of living hell.

Mine too, I meant those things individually. For example, if somebody rang your doorbell once late at night you'd probably tut and get on with it, same as if you got the occasional waft of dope. It was the fact it was day after day...

Imagine living that way though, having literally no reason to get out of bed in the morning other than to go and get more fags. Properly depressing.

[Brave Fart]

I'm fairly lucky - the social housing homes "nearby" are well away from my house. Sometimes I'll walk down that way though, and it's depressing - toys scattered outside the front door, crappy cars that can't have seen an MOT for many a year, general litter, and yes, that disgusting smell of weed that seems to infest certain parts of our society.

My point really is this: it makes no sense to put social housing in out-of-town areas where there's no jobs, no public transport, no local shops and no sense of community. It's fine if you are busy and employed in one of the local towns. But for the type of people described above it doesn't work. So, put social housing in purpose-built urban areas where there's good local facilities. Some might call them ghettos. I'd say that it's just a better way of organising housing, that doesn't drag down the decent citizens.

[monkfish1]

Nickbrapp said:

Help to buy is a big part of it, another is that all the older houses I’ve looked at cost the same but need a lot of work, some a whole referb including boilers etc, others new kitchens etc, so you have to then live in a project for a long time, and I don’t want to have to waste money on stuff you get with a new build like good windows, good insulation etc, dead money kinda, it saves you money but it takes an age to get it back.

An older house that’s done up is a option, but again they tend to be more expensive again, and often they’ve done the kitchen and the bathroom but not the windows. Or they’ve done it up quickly and shoved in a cheap bathroom and kitchen so again you have to hange it all.

New builds you get to pick your options, carpets all, it’s quite exciting like getting a new car and choosing all the stuff.

Not sure where you live, but round here new houses command a premium over the existing housing stock. And still they buy them. 3/4 scale models of real houses!

Sorry, dont get it, never will, especially given the issues with social housing often being mixed in.

[V8RX7]

CPWilliams said:

If you don't mix it, you risk creating ghettos.

Yes but they are ghettos which "normal" people can avoid, rather than living next to.

I do feel sorry for the decent people who find themselves living in Council / HA accommodation - some are there through illness and circumstances beyond their control

When I was employed by a Developer (some years ago) we managed to negotiate that we got to pick the tenants from the HA list to ensure we picked the best ones

[Type R Tom]

I bought a new build in 2006. It was a stretch but we got a good deal. The social houses in the estate were placed together and the houses closest too them were the last to sell. I remember being rather miffed when I found our the social people got to pick from the same materials for the kitchen and carpets as I did.

To be fair initially they were fine but more recently the old mattress and rubbish have started to collect, I wonder if the first people have left.

[austinsmirk]

Well my expert social housing view is:

With new build you generally can’t find anyone good enough to go in it, despite it often being amazing and far bigger than the tat chucked up by developers

So up here in West Yorkshire:
For those that think I jest, we recently purchased a no of units in a village. The houses for sale adjacent started at £530 k from memory, might have been £630, for just a new build 3 bed in a nice village. stupid money for what it is. Honestly what a nightmare finding decent enough people to live in such a location and to adhere to the covenants. The waiting lists produced "junk" applicants and when my staff went to see them in their homes, my word, people were just living in hovels............... even though they knew their homes were to be inspected and they might get a once in a million chance for a home such as these.

Good little example is also how the statistics are just garbage about demand. Two weeks ago I was trying to decide whether we should build some 3-4 bed houses. The cities housing register tells me 400 families need specifically that, in that precise area.

However I’ve staff who cannot let, 4, 3 bed typical semi council type houses in the exact spot. Each have been offered out say 35 times each. Nothing is wrong with any of them. So, where’s the demand that the register says exists? That the politicians say exist ?

Well in the main it isn’t. Build a register, a waiting list, people join it, because why not ? You might get that new build for free.

One thing we don’t do is reward the decent working man, family on a low income who needs a break in life. They have to jump though hoops and be stuck with all the professionally unemployed long term benefits claimants. And that’s not fair. Plus literally there are virtually no consequences for a person who literally wants to play the system over and over

Still some of us go still try to cut the wheat from the chaff.

but alas, you can watch the new builds head into slumdom, the moment you move the tnts in. I mean, why would you attempt to put your rubbish in a bin, or mow yr lawn, why would you ??

Edited by austinsmirk on Friday 20th April 08:18