Right or wrong? Social housing on new builds
Discussion
brianashley said:
ollie05 said:
Exactly that. If you are looking at new developments, you basically have to get a look at the site drawings asap and buy off plan in the better part of the site, i.e the other side of the HA builds.
It's rediculous; new redrow estate near me with some lovely expensive houses we would like but can't afford, but the same standard of houses is given away. Pisses me off
It's rediculous; new redrow estate near me with some lovely expensive houses we would like but can't afford, but the same standard of houses is given away. Pisses me off
Edited by andy.mod on Thursday 19th April 15:13
Social rented tenants can be an issue on new build developments. But we are stuck with a policy that basically makes the private sector pay for the land and build.
To do it differently you would have to make major structural changes to the way that Housing Associations and Councils are funded, you would have to take a lot of expensive private sector skill set into the public sector.
If you do that, then you run the risk of creating ghetto's.
IMO, being in the residential and development industry, the solution is much better management by the Housing Associations and more power to end leases and evict problem tenants.
For what its worth, the one development that I have done with the most problems from a neighbour was on an expensive development in the Midlands. The houses then were £750k to £1.5m, now they are £1.5m, to £2.5m. One buyer paid £850k when new for a 5 bed detached house on a gated private development. This family behaved worse than any family in social housing on any of the other developments I have done, (and I have done some pretty cheap ones) they did everything you expect from the worst social tenants and more.
Scum occur at all wealth levels
To do it differently you would have to make major structural changes to the way that Housing Associations and Councils are funded, you would have to take a lot of expensive private sector skill set into the public sector.
If you do that, then you run the risk of creating ghetto's.
IMO, being in the residential and development industry, the solution is much better management by the Housing Associations and more power to end leases and evict problem tenants.
For what its worth, the one development that I have done with the most problems from a neighbour was on an expensive development in the Midlands. The houses then were £750k to £1.5m, now they are £1.5m, to £2.5m. One buyer paid £850k when new for a 5 bed detached house on a gated private development. This family behaved worse than any family in social housing on any of the other developments I have done, (and I have done some pretty cheap ones) they did everything you expect from the worst social tenants and more.
Scum occur at all wealth levels
When we moved last June we looked at a few new build developments. One of the developments had the house style we were after, but directly opposite a row of these HA terraced houses. The sales assistant couldn't understand why we didn't want to live there. Especially when the house price was the same there as same style house on the other end of the Dev, which overlooked woodlands rather than scum town.
blueg33 said:
Social rented tenants can be an issue on new build developments. But we are stuck with a policy that basically makes the private sector pay for the land and build.
To do it differently you would have to make major structural changes to the way that Housing Associations and Councils are funded, you would have to take a lot of expensive private sector skill set into the public sector.
If you do that, then you run the risk of creating ghetto's.
IMO, being in the residential and development industry, the solution is much better management by the Housing Associations and more power to end leases and evict problem tenants.
For what its worth, the one development that I have done with the most problems from a neighbour was on an expensive development in the Midlands. The houses then were £750k to £1.5m, now they are £1.5m, to £2.5m. One buyer paid £850k when new for a 5 bed detached house on a gated private development. This family behaved worse than any family in social housing on any of the other developments I have done, (and I have done some pretty cheap ones) they did everything you expect from the worst social tenants and more.
Scum occur at all wealth levels
There are indeed scum at all levels but not at the volume you observe where HA's are involved. Again, the finger points at the landlord for not being more pro-active managing their 'estate' and its tenants. To do it differently you would have to make major structural changes to the way that Housing Associations and Councils are funded, you would have to take a lot of expensive private sector skill set into the public sector.
If you do that, then you run the risk of creating ghetto's.
IMO, being in the residential and development industry, the solution is much better management by the Housing Associations and more power to end leases and evict problem tenants.
For what its worth, the one development that I have done with the most problems from a neighbour was on an expensive development in the Midlands. The houses then were £750k to £1.5m, now they are £1.5m, to £2.5m. One buyer paid £850k when new for a 5 bed detached house on a gated private development. This family behaved worse than any family in social housing on any of the other developments I have done, (and I have done some pretty cheap ones) they did everything you expect from the worst social tenants and more.
Scum occur at all wealth levels
If I was buying on a new build that had HA houses, I'd be buying on the opposite end to them or not at all.
Went to look at a flat and you could tell which houses were HA and private, I wasn't even looking out for it.
EDIT to add I was raised on a moderately bad council estate and lived there for about 18 years. I remember when every adult on the estate was your parent as they knew your parents and if you were naughty it would get back so kids did as they were told, everyone talked to each other and it was generally clean and looked after - we had to live there after all. Nobody was ever broken into and no cars were ever damaged, the odd stolen car was found in the car park though as they just wanted a ride home. Walking around where I grew up now - and I regularly go back to visit my mum at least once a week it's disgusting and filthy, nobody cares about anything and most of the people I used to know have been rehoused to make way for more younger families with kids that just don't care with parents who don't care either.
Funny that most of the kids I grew up with on the estate are now doing alright, got their own places - some social some private rent and some bought and there's not many of us that ended up dead or in prison which is quite good.
Went to look at a flat and you could tell which houses were HA and private, I wasn't even looking out for it.
EDIT to add I was raised on a moderately bad council estate and lived there for about 18 years. I remember when every adult on the estate was your parent as they knew your parents and if you were naughty it would get back so kids did as they were told, everyone talked to each other and it was generally clean and looked after - we had to live there after all. Nobody was ever broken into and no cars were ever damaged, the odd stolen car was found in the car park though as they just wanted a ride home. Walking around where I grew up now - and I regularly go back to visit my mum at least once a week it's disgusting and filthy, nobody cares about anything and most of the people I used to know have been rehoused to make way for more younger families with kids that just don't care with parents who don't care either.
Funny that most of the kids I grew up with on the estate are now doing alright, got their own places - some social some private rent and some bought and there's not many of us that ended up dead or in prison which is quite good.
Edited by ashleyman on Monday 1st May 13:23
ashleyman said:
If I was buying on a new build that had HA houses, I'd be buying on the opposite end to them or not at all.
Went to look at a flat and you could tell which houses were HA and private, I wasn't even looking out for it.
That's a lot of the trouble; they get mixed in alongside full paying house owners. This was the case with the Taylor Wimpey site I walked away from. Went to look at a flat and you could tell which houses were HA and private, I wasn't even looking out for it.
kurt535 said:
ashleyman said:
If I was buying on a new build that had HA houses, I'd be buying on the opposite end to them or not at all.
Went to look at a flat and you could tell which houses were HA and private, I wasn't even looking out for it.
That's a lot of the trouble; they get mixed in alongside full paying house owners. This was the case with the Taylor Wimpey site I walked away from. Went to look at a flat and you could tell which houses were HA and private, I wasn't even looking out for it.
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
You could be describing multiple housing estates on the 'old' new towns/garden cities! My old estate was tucked right out on the fringes of the new town so the inhabitants couldn't muck up anyone else!! I suppose it worked very well in hindsight. There are two primary reasons for building social housing within private developments:
- It's built privately, so no cost to local authorities
- It avoids the ghetto effect with the intention of stopping certain areas of towns being 'no-go' areas
Of course, if you're on a low income (and social housing is provided to those in work as well as out of work) then you're less likely to have the money to "make pretty" your home like your neighbours. Your fence may be left unpainted, the grass will be cut less frequently, and your car will likely look 'lesser'. Secondly, it's not your home. As with any rented accommodation, where is the incentive to make improvements if you don't benefit from the increased value?
A colleague of mine earns mid-£20k salary and lives in a house association provided 2-bed home with her young son. She works full time and is raising her son as best she can. She struggles. The cost of childcare is huge and she doesn't have the luxury of spare cash or time to plant flowers, paint the fence, or anything else which separates her home from that of her neighbour. But she's happy to be on a nicer development than the old tower blocks that she thought she'd be in. It's safer and a much nicer place to raise her son. The argument that only "hard working" people should deserve nice homes is misguided at best. We're all just a health-scare away from being in a very similar situation, losing an income, and struggling to make ends meet.
There are problem neighbours everywhere. You only need to look through the forums here to see how many people live next to owner-occupiers who leave rubbish outside, or park their caravan in the way, or do anything else which we consider unpleasant. It's not restricted to social housing.
As an aside, I'm sick to death of the "immigrant" line. My family are immigrants who came here to escape persecution elsewhere and build a better life. Our standard conversation on these issues is about how lazy British people are. It's always the English folks who leave work at a minute before 5 and refuse to even turn their computer on until exactly 9am, watching the clock to make sure they get their exact hour lunch-break. It's a separate debate but it's infurating.
- It's built privately, so no cost to local authorities
- It avoids the ghetto effect with the intention of stopping certain areas of towns being 'no-go' areas
Of course, if you're on a low income (and social housing is provided to those in work as well as out of work) then you're less likely to have the money to "make pretty" your home like your neighbours. Your fence may be left unpainted, the grass will be cut less frequently, and your car will likely look 'lesser'. Secondly, it's not your home. As with any rented accommodation, where is the incentive to make improvements if you don't benefit from the increased value?
A colleague of mine earns mid-£20k salary and lives in a house association provided 2-bed home with her young son. She works full time and is raising her son as best she can. She struggles. The cost of childcare is huge and she doesn't have the luxury of spare cash or time to plant flowers, paint the fence, or anything else which separates her home from that of her neighbour. But she's happy to be on a nicer development than the old tower blocks that she thought she'd be in. It's safer and a much nicer place to raise her son. The argument that only "hard working" people should deserve nice homes is misguided at best. We're all just a health-scare away from being in a very similar situation, losing an income, and struggling to make ends meet.
There are problem neighbours everywhere. You only need to look through the forums here to see how many people live next to owner-occupiers who leave rubbish outside, or park their caravan in the way, or do anything else which we consider unpleasant. It's not restricted to social housing.
As an aside, I'm sick to death of the "immigrant" line. My family are immigrants who came here to escape persecution elsewhere and build a better life. Our standard conversation on these issues is about how lazy British people are. It's always the English folks who leave work at a minute before 5 and refuse to even turn their computer on until exactly 9am, watching the clock to make sure they get their exact hour lunch-break. It's a separate debate but it's infurating.
romeogolf said:
There are two primary reasons for building social housing within private developments:
- It's built privately, so no cost to local authorities
- It avoids the ghetto effect with the intention of stopping certain areas of towns being 'no-go' areas
Of course, if you're on a low income (and social housing is provided to those in work as well as out of work) then you're less likely to have the money to "make pretty" your home like your neighbours. Your fence may be left unpainted, the grass will be cut less frequently, and your car will likely look 'lesser'. Secondly, it's not your home. As with any rented accommodation, where is the incentive to make improvements if you don't benefit from the increased value?
A colleague of mine earns mid-£20k salary and lives in a house association provided 2-bed home with her young son. She works full time and is raising her son as best she can. She struggles. The cost of childcare is huge and she doesn't have the luxury of spare cash or time to plant flowers, paint the fence, or anything else which separates her home from that of her neighbour. But she's happy to be on a nicer development than the old tower blocks that she thought she'd be in. It's safer and a much nicer place to raise her son. The argument that only "hard working" people should deserve nice homes is misguided at best. We're all just a health-scare away from being in a very similar situation, losing an income, and struggling to make ends meet.
There are problem neighbours everywhere. You only need to look through the forums here to see how many people live next to owner-occupiers who leave rubbish outside, or park their caravan in the way, or do anything else which we consider unpleasant. It's not restricted to social housing.
As an aside, I'm sick to death of the "immigrant" line. My family are immigrants who came here to escape persecution elsewhere and build a better life. Our standard conversation on these issues is about how lazy British people are. It's always the English folks who leave work at a minute before 5 and refuse to even turn their computer on until exactly 9am, watching the clock to make sure they get their exact hour lunch-break. It's a separate debate but it's infurating.
I don't think anyone will argue your viewpoints other than there have been enough posts already (some hard £ evidence) which identify SH to rent as the main cursor to issues on a mixed development. From my observations where I am, I also agree with them.- It's built privately, so no cost to local authorities
- It avoids the ghetto effect with the intention of stopping certain areas of towns being 'no-go' areas
Of course, if you're on a low income (and social housing is provided to those in work as well as out of work) then you're less likely to have the money to "make pretty" your home like your neighbours. Your fence may be left unpainted, the grass will be cut less frequently, and your car will likely look 'lesser'. Secondly, it's not your home. As with any rented accommodation, where is the incentive to make improvements if you don't benefit from the increased value?
A colleague of mine earns mid-£20k salary and lives in a house association provided 2-bed home with her young son. She works full time and is raising her son as best she can. She struggles. The cost of childcare is huge and she doesn't have the luxury of spare cash or time to plant flowers, paint the fence, or anything else which separates her home from that of her neighbour. But she's happy to be on a nicer development than the old tower blocks that she thought she'd be in. It's safer and a much nicer place to raise her son. The argument that only "hard working" people should deserve nice homes is misguided at best. We're all just a health-scare away from being in a very similar situation, losing an income, and struggling to make ends meet.
There are problem neighbours everywhere. You only need to look through the forums here to see how many people live next to owner-occupiers who leave rubbish outside, or park their caravan in the way, or do anything else which we consider unpleasant. It's not restricted to social housing.
As an aside, I'm sick to death of the "immigrant" line. My family are immigrants who came here to escape persecution elsewhere and build a better life. Our standard conversation on these issues is about how lazy British people are. It's always the English folks who leave work at a minute before 5 and refuse to even turn their computer on until exactly 9am, watching the clock to make sure they get their exact hour lunch-break. It's a separate debate but it's infurating.
I lived in camden for years, but had to uproot as when we came to buying our house our budget would get us an ex-LA maisonette in a scammy block, or a pleasant 3 bed semi in a (nicer) part of enfield. Im no snob at all but I just couldn't work hard all day to keep a roof over our heads then come home and have all the ag, shouting, loud muzak, pissy elevators etc from entitled scumbags getting the same roof for free, and nowt you can do about it.
Different setting I appreciate but same basic problem
Different setting I appreciate but same basic problem
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
The house behind ours is rented. It's always that house that has the noisy summer barbeques, completely OTT fireworks etc.One of my daughters has a house on a estate on the edge of Chester. For a while everything that came up for sale was snapped up by BTL landlords. Good for sellers as it put a floor under the prices, but it meant private buyers were paying artificially higher prices. The tenants cause no problems but turnover is high and she thinks it affects the feel of the place.
Must admit that I would be very reluctant to move onto a scheme where there is either what is deemed as 'affordable housing' or where HA's will be involved.
I am sure initially (read into that - when the developer is still selling other properties so doesnt want the great unwashed spoiling their sales) that the new residents will have to meet certain criteria - but you can bet your bottom dollar, a few years down the line, standards will slip. Any HA involved in the scheme may have a change of policy, council's may start to house people in them, private landlords, even HMO's
We have been lucky in that we have just moved into a ten year old house, I gather it was built before developers were 'forced' or encouraged to build the affordable housing (or as its quite a small scheme, 60 houses, they didnt have to).
I am sure initially (read into that - when the developer is still selling other properties so doesnt want the great unwashed spoiling their sales) that the new residents will have to meet certain criteria - but you can bet your bottom dollar, a few years down the line, standards will slip. Any HA involved in the scheme may have a change of policy, council's may start to house people in them, private landlords, even HMO's
We have been lucky in that we have just moved into a ten year old house, I gather it was built before developers were 'forced' or encouraged to build the affordable housing (or as its quite a small scheme, 60 houses, they didnt have to).
The local HA bought next door, the rest of the neighbourhood is privately owned.
It would not be so bad if the HA managed their tenants, they simply don't give a hoot. It's gone from bad to worse & anywhere in between. A series of tenants all with the same attitude & they know full well what they can get away with, which they do.
Nobody is accountable for their actions, best case they get moved on. Start procedure again.
It would not be so bad if the HA managed their tenants, they simply don't give a hoot. It's gone from bad to worse & anywhere in between. A series of tenants all with the same attitude & they know full well what they can get away with, which they do.
Nobody is accountable for their actions, best case they get moved on. Start procedure again.
You can take the person out of the council estate you cant take the council estate out of the person (in every instance).
If you havent been raised knowing that throwing fag butts out the front, gobbing, shouting your head off late at night isnt acceptable then moving somewhere nice wont change that.
Plenty of people who come from a council background are brought up well enough to know that it isnt.
However if you have 5 council houses on a new build you are likely to have at least 1 set of s
tty coucil tenants and thats enough to spoil it for everyone.
My sister had to move as she got tired with hearing the neighbour shout to get her kids in from the garden (with 2 trampolines in ) "Get the fk in hear now you little s"
I enjoy the pleasure of neighbours who shout when getting home each weekend, friends of theirs parking in my allocated spot then getting aggressive when i partially blocked them in (4th time they had done it - the note i left previously was just thrown on the floor), fights. A delight.
If you havent been raised knowing that throwing fag butts out the front, gobbing, shouting your head off late at night isnt acceptable then moving somewhere nice wont change that.
Plenty of people who come from a council background are brought up well enough to know that it isnt.
However if you have 5 council houses on a new build you are likely to have at least 1 set of s
tty coucil tenants and thats enough to spoil it for everyone. My sister had to move as she got tired with hearing the neighbour shout to get her kids in from the garden (with 2 trampolines in ) "Get the f
k in hear now you little s"I enjoy the pleasure of neighbours who shout when getting home each weekend, friends of theirs parking in my allocated spot then getting aggressive when i partially blocked them in (4th time they had done it - the note i left previously was just thrown on the floor), fights. A delight.
I feel for you people who are affected by HA's inability to control their tenants.
This seems a really unfair burden on someone who do make an effort to work hard and pay their way in life (HA staircase buying as well). Admittedly, we have always had scum on estates - I remember only too clearly the idiots on mine as a child - but we don't seem to have broken the cycle by expecting nothing back from the current crop.
Whilst not affecting where I am (and hope it never does) I've found myself reading up about community CCTV systems (PHer CCTV42) in case the issues creep my way.
Something clearly needs to change in terms of making HA's far more accountable though.
This seems a really unfair burden on someone who do make an effort to work hard and pay their way in life (HA staircase buying as well). Admittedly, we have always had scum on estates - I remember only too clearly the idiots on mine as a child - but we don't seem to have broken the cycle by expecting nothing back from the current crop.
Whilst not affecting where I am (and hope it never does) I've found myself reading up about community CCTV systems (PHer CCTV42) in case the issues creep my way.
Something clearly needs to change in terms of making HA's far more accountable though.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff