Right or wrong? Social housing on new builds
Discussion
I need to declare an interest here: I grew up on a particularly nasty council estate till I was 14 and then, 8 years ago, post divorce, found myself in a housing association scheme starting all over again...so, you could say I have form.....
Have recently moved into a city town house on an 8 year old development which has, either end of it, housing association social houses/flats no different in style to the ones bought by the rest of us.
What gets me is the world of difference between those who are clearly buying their house through the HA and those who rent through it. The development has a thoughtful small children's park in the middle which becomes the night time magnet for the teen children to congregate and well, leave tins, smashed glass, etc etc. Uncut lawns? Yep, rented houses. Crap outside their house? Yep rented houses. Chav-esque drama between two alchies? Yep outside the rented houses.
The problems I've witnessed aren't really affecting me but I do massively feel for the people/ young couples making a go of it with their first staged house purchase alongside someone who doesn't give a f
k as its all paid for by benefits. It seems really unfair a person can be handed a subsidised way of life to then admonish responsibility for taking care of the property, its surroundings or how their children behave in the community.
Is/was the expectation a person will change their behaviour if surrounded by people holding down a career, paying a mortgage? So, my question is, does the social housing - must - be - included - in - every - new - housing - development actually work? Stair casing to buy homes for couples/families is wholly appropriate but the rented inclusion is leaving me cold! Having lived in Hackney for a decade, I obviously fully accept unsociable behaviour will be far higher in a city due to the confluence of so many people.
It must also be an utter pain for house builders as well. One Taylor Wimpey house on a new site I seriously considered earlier this year got the big thumbs down from me when the sales agent sheepishly admitted HA was mixed cheek to cheek with private buyers' houses...and yes Id have a HA 4 bed rented house next door to me......suffice to say I walked away. She did also admit in excess of 40% of the new builds on the development was SH. This seemed a massive figure.
So, your views would be interesting. What have your experiences been? Do you think the 'watering down' of what old money would call council estates is the way forward in reducing social problems? Or does it merely spread the problems over wider areas and ultimately affect your house value when you come to sell?
Have recently moved into a city town house on an 8 year old development which has, either end of it, housing association social houses/flats no different in style to the ones bought by the rest of us.
What gets me is the world of difference between those who are clearly buying their house through the HA and those who rent through it. The development has a thoughtful small children's park in the middle which becomes the night time magnet for the teen children to congregate and well, leave tins, smashed glass, etc etc. Uncut lawns? Yep, rented houses. Crap outside their house? Yep rented houses. Chav-esque drama between two alchies? Yep outside the rented houses.
The problems I've witnessed aren't really affecting me but I do massively feel for the people/ young couples making a go of it with their first staged house purchase alongside someone who doesn't give a f
k as its all paid for by benefits. It seems really unfair a person can be handed a subsidised way of life to then admonish responsibility for taking care of the property, its surroundings or how their children behave in the community. Is/was the expectation a person will change their behaviour if surrounded by people holding down a career, paying a mortgage? So, my question is, does the social housing - must - be - included - in - every - new - housing - development actually work? Stair casing to buy homes for couples/families is wholly appropriate but the rented inclusion is leaving me cold! Having lived in Hackney for a decade, I obviously fully accept unsociable behaviour will be far higher in a city due to the confluence of so many people.
It must also be an utter pain for house builders as well. One Taylor Wimpey house on a new site I seriously considered earlier this year got the big thumbs down from me when the sales agent sheepishly admitted HA was mixed cheek to cheek with private buyers' houses...and yes Id have a HA 4 bed rented house next door to me......suffice to say I walked away. She did also admit in excess of 40% of the new builds on the development was SH. This seemed a massive figure.
So, your views would be interesting. What have your experiences been? Do you think the 'watering down' of what old money would call council estates is the way forward in reducing social problems? Or does it merely spread the problems over wider areas and ultimately affect your house value when you come to sell?
Underlying theme here is HA's are at fault for not keeping their 'manors' in order. I do strongly agree with this. I'd be gutted if I was a a private home owner affected by some of the crap I've seen going on. The totalitarian side of me would come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone who failed to follow the ground rules and kick them out.
Reading some of the comments here also confirms the marked difference between a person who buys and one who rents a HA house/flat. Im even more relieved I passed on the Taylor Wimpey house.
Reading some of the comments here also confirms the marked difference between a person who buys and one who rents a HA house/flat. Im even more relieved I passed on the Taylor Wimpey house.
MitchT said:
About ten years ago I was eyeing a new development. A two bed flat was £160k and the development was a mix of private and HA. Needless to say I walked away - not least because I didn't much fancy the thought of my car in its "allocated parking space" overnight surrounded by these dossers. The private stuff struggled to sell and eventually the two bed I'd looked at, at £160k, was listed at £85k. Not nice for anyone who'd actually bought one!
Everyone needs somewhere to live but any element of subsidised housing in a private development should be exclusively for people who are buying, and work hard, but simply can't afford the full price. People who don't want to work for the things that they get to make use of in life shouldn't be mixed in with those who do.
Jaysus - what part of the world was this?Everyone needs somewhere to live but any element of subsidised housing in a private development should be exclusively for people who are buying, and work hard, but simply can't afford the full price. People who don't want to work for the things that they get to make use of in life shouldn't be mixed in with those who do.
Edited by kurt535 on Monday 1st May 09:23
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
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
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. 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 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.
iwantagta said:
CraigyMc said:
iwantagta said:
It was a glib comment that was expanded upon after this.
Maybe have some consideration?I could have phrased it better.
People who have no respect for their surroundings won't have their attitude changed by moving to a nice area was, in essence, what i was trying to say.
I know I can't get the crap council estate experiences out of my head. I hated it and hated the people who trashed where I lived.
That's never left me which makes me more disappointed nothing seems to have changed with HA rented stock.
Crumpet said:
iwantagta said:
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"Anyway, the social housing on the estate a couple of miles from us is basically down a separate cul-de-sac away from the private houses. It's also built of much cheaper materials so I suppose if you've bought privately on the estate you don't feel like the workshy scumbags are getting the same house as you for free. Personally I think this is the best compromise.
FrankAbagnale said:
Social housing quotas combined with developer levys in South Oxon are making previously viable developments less attractive to residential developers and as a result no homes are being built. So, there is less supply of regular homes and no social housing being built on those sites at all.
Instead, we are seeing care homes being built for the elderly.
I think this is a valid point. It also encourages potential developments for SME firms that would trigger the SH clause to be avoided/less houses built on the plot. Instead, we are seeing care homes being built for the elderly.
fastbikes76 said:
Im in the process of buying in a new build estate, Its around 7-10 years old now with our particular house being 5 years old. I have driven passed it multiple times at various points of the day/week and its always quiet with no sign of aforementioned oik's.
Is there any way to find out which houses on the estate are HA ? Thankfully our house is at the end of the cul-de-sac and our only neighbour is an old boy who lives abroad for 8 months of the year which is even better.
My experiences walking around a couple of developments today about .2km from where I am in the city;Is there any way to find out which houses on the estate are HA ? Thankfully our house is at the end of the cul-de-sac and our only neighbour is an old boy who lives abroad for 8 months of the year which is even better.
- Look at the gardens - unkempt or with multiple bikes rubbish in them, you have your answer and....
- Windows. Blankets or old nets/ broken panes/smears/ broken blinds, you have your answer.
I should have taken pix to back up my allegations but thought better of it incase I got someone angry come out
As for discovering who owns what, additionally:
- the local council should have a page listing HA locations and what's coming up to bid to rent for.
- Also, HA's frequently have their sign up by their developments.
- DONT (HA or otherwise) ever buy opposite a kid's park - the two i saw today had litter, graffiti strewn in them - abeam the HA section
- Check police crime in the neighbourhood online. For example, one HA development i saw today comes up with crimes I cross referenced in google over the last 2 years to discover one was a murder and another was a drug dealing gang member that got sent down.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff