To wonder why the council can build family friendly houses and developers can't!

Because private developers cut every bit of quality and space out to make a profit. As an example, if they can save 10p on a front door lock they will, leaving you with the same key as half the estate, vulnerable to burglary. That is not an exaggeration. That is a real life example.

I would never buy a new build for this reason.

They get very creative with their viability assessments, that's how they get out of it

I don't dispute that.

But people earlier in the thread were assuming their council tax went towards this, and that is the point I was correcting.

I think there is a fair argument for the government to build decent housing stock of a good size and then rent out at cost or just above it, thus providing secure, safe homes for people without it costing tax money.

IF that's what some are able to do today then I'd like to see more of it.

https://neweconomics.org/2022/02/how-private-developers-get-out-of-building-affordable-housing#:~:text=In%20essence%2C%20financial%20viability%20assessments,assessments%20alongside%20their%20planning%20application.

That’s not at all reality. Sometimes developers give money or build social housing on a different site but the idea that they can or so just ignore the law or that councils turn down revenue is just fantasy.

Most council funding comes from central government. Developers are also forced to build housing for free as a planning condition and pass it to local authorities or housing associations.

the council can (and often do) spend much more on building housing because they don’t have to sell them on the open market. The fact there is a massive waiting list for affordable housing seems to be irrelevant to them.

Because the smaller the house, the more they can squeeze in, the more profit they make.

My son and his fiancée live in a new build, it's owned by the council but in a private estate. There are 6 new builds on the estate which belong to the council and they are a bit larger than the others. However this estate is mainly detached properties so I'm not sure it's as obvious.
They get benefits but have the biggest sky package known to man (3 of those bloody sky glass teles), a car on lease that's 2 years old (not a small car either, 7 seats). They do both work, but have children too.
When they were moving in 2 years ago we were selling our family home and bought all the furniture and helped decorate. We gave our other son the same amount of money and he used it for a house deposit. But with secure tenancy they said there was no point doing the same as they wouldn't get a house as nice or on as nice of an estate!

Well yes. But the builders will look to maximise their profit whereas the council will be more focused on their objective of providing housing.

But the builders can reasonably be expected to make a profit, does anyone work for nothing? The one advantage that the council has may be that they already own the land on which they're having the houses built.

The only rental costs being subsidised are those of private tenants in receipt of UC. This absolutely feeds into the cost of housing overall as it's funnelling profit directly into the hands of private landlords.

Because the council aren’t operating for
profit?

But who is building the council's houses? The days when they had their own building teams are long gone so somewhere a builder is still able to build to this standard and make a profit.

Security I suppose, people who privately rent do not get a lifetime tenancy , a landlord may want to sell the property or move back in

@LaCouleurDeMonCiel I think you are confusing "subsidised" with "choosing not to make a profit". Social housing is required by law to be self financing. You may wish to look up the concept of the housing revenue account.

Something has gone very wrong in this country if what sounds like a classroom assistant (part time, term time only, low pay) can only have a family with the support of benefits. We need good people doing these badly paid jobs long term, not just people with no other options.

Me and dp have always worked and we lived in a council flat and then house. We were both prepared to live there forever as we had no chance of saving enough for a deposit, but due to us both being made redundant we could. If that hadn't happened, we'd still be there. Both working ft.

But then why go for HA? Genuine Q as people always seem to complain about maintenance etc and I always thought the big advantage was a lower price but if it is to pay the same why not go private?

as I said in my last post my son pays £1400 a month for a HA 3 bed, old council owned 3 Beds are are maybe what your talking about "high subsidised rent" as in our area they rent for between £500 and £600 a month. A private rental for a 3 bed in our area ranges from £1400 a month so not much different than a newbuilt HA house.

Many can’t.

“The case for getting rid of the two-child and overall benefit caps has never been stronger, given the obscene extent of child poverty.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/16/the-guardian-view-on-universal-credit-raising-the-level-of-benefits-must-be-the-priority?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Councils do see through them, but unfortunately often can't justify the cost of taking the developers to court and making them stick to their contracts.

The guy who laid my flooring in my last place also did the flooring for a friend who'd just moved into a new social housing flat. Her flat was in a 'luxury' block where 20% or something were social housing. He'd done some of the privately owned flats too, and he commented to me that the social housing flats were more spacious because councils have minimum standards whereas developers will just sell for what they can get.

I feel that subsidising rental costs must feed into the cost of housing overall