The New Builds Are Coming

[feefiifoo]

Anyone watching this? I'm fascinated by it! Very interesting. I'm team 'Period property' and my BFF has only ever owned new builds and it's a source of friendly banter but this show raises huge issues like schools and quality of the homes itself. I missed the first half hour. Gutted!

[feefiifoo]

I do definitely see the benefit to moving into a house that is all done where you only have to bring your toothbrush by the way. That is very appealing I have to say.

[thereinmadnesslies]

It’s a really interesting programme. I can’t believe the only solution are these giant soulless identical estates

[Jammycustard]

Loved the adult ‘altrrnative’ Son whinging about the boring soulless estate.

[feefiifoo]

It's really is the "cookie cutter" houses that I can't stand. Not all new build estates are like that I know, but this one on the show is so crammed together with barely any parking for some properties and zero garden.

It was when the chap said he had to have a police presence at a meeting which shows how much people can hate these estates cropping up.

[feefiifoo]

Yes, Mr Christmas! 😆

[Jammycustard]

I grew up on such estates. Hate them.

[feefiifoo]

I missed the first part, did it mention if these companies give any sort of funding to schools? It said they'd had about 31 new pupils in a year (guessing in various year groups) but it would be a big ask just to expect this to be covered? Not sure how it works!

[thereinmadnesslies]

It was interesting that so many people were using help to buy. It feels like an unsustainable bubble.

[feefiifoo]

Don't like these big cheese chaps!

[feefiifoo]

Is it me or do they seem to exude a strange sense of pride in the fact that they might be jeered at?

[Jammycustard]

Can’t believe that woman is annoyed that her new build is going to built next to by...new builds.

[feefiifoo]

She seemed a bit fake annoyed. Was doing a bit of smirking!

[Whatthefoxgoingon]

I think she was trying to put on a brave face.

This showed everything I absolutely loathe about new builds.

[fussychica]

I'm always amazed that people on the edge of a new estate don't realise the chances are they will have more houses built behind them. Some houses near us were recently sold for silly money and the blurb went on about the view. A bit of research by the buyer or, indeed, the solicitor would have shown that planning permission had been granted for more houses behind their properties. One is up for sale after just a few months, probably because building work won't be far away.

I have no objection to building new houses but they need to be both sympathetic to the surroundings and not in vast numbers all in one place just because it's cheap and easy for developers to make mega money. Above all they need to be houses designed to solve the housing problem, be that flats or starter homes not massive 4/5 beds on tiny plots.

Unfortunately, it's not about solving the housing crisis it's about greed.

[Smellylittleorange]

There are smaller companies that build too on smaller estates. My three bed semi has a 17ft squareish garden ..im fine with that ...the ones built just before ours are 50 pc bigger. There is a mixture of 2 bed , 3 bed and flats with a couple of 4 bed. Some social housing e.g sharerd ownership looks the same as rest. Councils should ensure sympaphetic architecture. There are some estates being built that are just unaffordable and greedy developers govt new house deposit schemes rely on you being able to save or move...it is a percentage of property value! I dont know what the solution is but certainly smaller developments from smaller building companies might be a solution

[herts]

What channel was this on ?

[DuckOffAutocorrectYouShiv]

I caught the last 20 mins ish of this programme. There were a few interesting points, I think.

The young woman in red lipstick who worked for the developers would NEVER live in a new build because she loved the character of period properties. Yet had no qualms about forcing poky characterless boxes onto green belt.

The Indian woman who bought her shoddy house on the edge, in a ‘prime position’, probably paid a premium for that view and premium spot. Yes, she was naive to think the development wouldn’t expand into further phases, or to get it double or triple checked by her solicitor at the search stage, but she isn’t unreasonable to be sad to be losing one of the primary reasons she chose the property. Yes, I realise it is ironic, given that her new build estate has ruined the bucolic view (and reduced the value) of the houses which stand on the edge of what used to be fields.

I can’t blame developers for wanting to get the most profit per square foot of land by building houses rather than facilities and infrastructure, they are a business after all. We should be looking at the toothless planning departments and rules that allow this to happen. Planning rules should be changed to mean that high density housing cannot be built without suitable facilities, not just a lip service parade of 4 shops and a tiny school for 4000 people.

[Smellylittleorange]

I don't think it's necessary fair for people to be sneery at New Builds and their design ...many many houses were built to similar specs as each other late 19th century and post war people need places to live then and do now. Agree its totally down to local councils to make sure builds are sustainable and right for area . I used to live in a victorian cottage full of character..also mould and drafts..something we couldnt address due to being in a conservation area and not being able to change windows or doors.

[BubblesBuddy]

For heavens sake! Most of you know, surely, there is a housing crisis. You can say you don’t like new homes but what other option is there if we want to help people get a home? Some of you have been sniffy about how people afford them and there isn’t room for umpteen cars! Lucky you with your period property in a fantastic location with s triple garage! Other people cannot afford this.

The realistic position is this: Developers pay towards infrastructure by legal agreements that come with planning permission. This can be schools, ring roads, surgeries etc. It is not acceptable to build larger, spaced out houses on new estates because some are housing association homes and the houses are built to meet need, not the views of what locals think is pretty. They would all be 5 bed detached if you let that happen. Profit is also curtailed where housing values are low. The cost of building and the price of land tends to drive down better finishes and better looking houses.

It can take developers years and years to get planning permission. It costs them £ millions to get pp in some cases. A huge amount of work goes into drainage and road layouts for example.

The LAs have development plans which allow housing development. All interested parties and the public can contribute to them. They must have these by law. Lots of LAs are still working on them so their previous policies on development still apply. There is going to be development in this country so people need to check out where it is in their area.

If we actually want to house our population, developers mst make a profit. It’s how housing gets built in this country. I am sick of people thinking no company should make a profit and every developer is greedy. It’s actually called success. Also remember this is a tv programme. They are hardly likely to pick out “normal” people to be in it - are they?

[HelenaDove]

I watched both programmes on i player . They quoted an old law that people arent entitled to a view . Apparently this law goes back to 1610.

[BettyBooJustDoinTheDoo]

Well said Bubbles it does make me laugh when people say new houses are crammed together, what about row upon row of tiny little older terraced houses throughout the UK with no frontage, just straight onto pavements with cars parked on either side of the road as they have no drives, plus the added attraction of wheelie bins outside as well, not all old houses are in their own plot of land with sweeping driveways plus garaging and no neighbours overlooking unless you have deep pockets.

[DuckOffAutocorrectYouShiv]

That is true but the square footage in equivalent period houses is often larger. A two bed Victorian terrace tends to be larger square footage wise than a Wimpey terrace 2 bedder. The difference gets more obvious when the houses get more ‘family sized’. My (pretty average) Victorian 5 bed detached is considerably larger than its average new build estate ‘executive home’ little brother. Probably by a good 50%.

It isn’t just pre war properties either, 1960’s & 70’s properties tend to have larger rooms (and be in bigger plots). In fact, they are often a fantastic option if you can live without period charm (though that 60’s character is fashionable at the mo). Big plots, big rooms, big windows, easy to knock about and change layout, often come with drives/garages/carports.

[BettyBooJustDoinTheDoo]

I was not commenting on house size duck a terraced house is a terraced house old or new you are still beside each other as the pictures show I was talking about people saying new houses are crammed together, yes they are, exactly like any other age house in this country! unless you are fortunate enough to be on your own large plot. Yes I agree that your ordinary 5 bed detached Victorian house is likely to be 50% bigger than a 5 bed executive in your area but surely yours would cost a lot more because if that? you are not really comparing like for like, unless of course yours is only the same value? if it is then maybe your house is not in as good a location as the new build executive house.

[Snugglepiggy]

I was literally shouting at the TV throughout the programme.Both our DCs have bought new builds ,and both have had to re get the developers back to sort out not just snagging but big problems resulting from shoddy work.One in particular -a Bellway house- has been been far from a dream home,more like a nightmare.Waterlogged garden,plumbing not correctly connected etc.And the attitude from the developer pretty shocking.Countless calls and emails to get anything done.I wanted more emphasis on the quality of the housing if we are to sacrifice our green belt.
The village where I live looks as if it will increase in size by a third if all the proposed developments get the green light,and it will honestly sicken me if the big developers like Bellway and Persimmon get their way and build.I've no problem with them making a profit if the qualitybis there,but there's a genuine crisis with the standards across the building industry.Some MNetters have probably had a very positive experience with a new build,but on our DDs estate there's a lot of angry,frustrated new homeowners feeling they may as well have bought a house to do up.I'd rather see some smaller local builders have the chance to build,or the brown field wastelands dotted around our nearby town ,still derelict be used to fulfill housing stock needs.

[The80sweregreat]

I did feel sorry for the couple that paid 800,000 for a home only to find that her view will be more houses in a years time.
The planning woman was typical, ' we want this to make money, but i wouldnt live in one'. my niece bought a town house new years ago and said there was nothing but problems with it - they sold up and bought a old bungalow to do up and extend.
They want to develop our town, thats all okay as long as the infastructure is there in place. They are in it for money and profit, not to worry about clogging up the roads and overcrowded schools. that needs to be sorted out as well, but nobody seems worried about that aspect of it. ( we do need more homes for people though, so a tricky problem to solve)