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

Taxpayers pay billions of pounds annually towards council housing. Whether or not it's council tax is irrelevant.

Just worth reminding people too that plenty of people in council /HA housing do pay council tax. (And many other taxes

(Not that it's relevant, because the council tax can't be used to fund council housing, but I always feel frustrated by ignorant comments from people who seem to assume people in council houses don't pay tax)

Again council tax money cannot be used to subsidise council housing, there are very strict accounting rules on this.

In my experience the social rent level actually does very much cover the costs too. The difference between social rent and private rent is profit for the landlord

Agreed, I have spoken to plenty of developers who know exactly how to play the game.

councils don't need to make profit.

And often already hold land they can use.

They can't use council tax payers money to fund council housing though (nor can they use council housing rents to fund general services)

Also -.most " council housing" is actually owned by Housing Associations,

Council tax can't be used to cross subsidise council housing, there are strict accounting rules

My guess would be because council houses are built to be practical and new builds are build to look good and sell For good money. So different markets.

I say that as someone who has a 2018 built house. I would love built on wardrobes but new builds don’t do them around here anymore I think because it makes the rooms seem bigger.

That said though our house is 3 double bedrooms which I think is unusual. Bedroom 2 and 3 are identical size.

We actually want to move and I’d consider an ex council house because they are just better for space and storage etc.

A tiny number of net contributors funding huge swathes of non contributors can only end one way.

It has become a lifestyle choice not to pay your own way these days and the system encourages it.

Imagine if everyone bar the genuinely incapable decided to fund themselves. The country would be thriving.

What a ridiculous claim - this is not why we are skint.

@ISeriouslyDoubtIt

I know, curiosity got the better of me so I just used one of the benefit calculators, based on that they would get £900+ UC a month, Scottish child payment for all 3 children and child benefit, plus DS making over £2000 a month and his partner making £650 or so.
Their youngest children are twins so I think that impacts the amount they get but it's ridiculous!

Something has gone wrong in this country if a family can choose to have 3 children and can earn that much yet get all their rent paid by the state.

In my village it's the opposite. Huge new build estate, a certain number of social housing houses as part of that. Watched them being built, they were built from inferior materials, different doors and windows etc and all the social housing is directly on the busy main road, or built where all the water used to pool when it was fields ie the worst positions in the development. Mind you all the houses private or not are awful, tiny gardens even in big houses, very close together, hardly any greenery, horrible.

@Charlie2121
I agree, they have a better life than my daughter who's a single mum to one kid and works all the hours she can - it's insane!

This is why the country is skint. Someone funding that themselves would need a salary of around 100k. It’s just not sustainable to keep subsidising so many people.

My son and his partner are in one of these massive new build council houses. Their home is gorgeous and the little development is lovely too. They get full rent paid by UC (3 children, she works part time, term time, minimum wage bringing home about £600 a month, my son is on about 30k) then they get Scottish child payment and child benefit too. They really are better off than many who work!!
Their house has a drive way, 3 double bedrooms all with built in wardrobes, a massive airing cupboard and upstairs cupboard, downstairs loo, separate bath and shower, massive kitchen diner which they have a sofa in too and a large lounge, also with a massive garden and drive way. We were looking at a new build not long ago and we wouldn't have got any of that!

Floor plan of one nearby
They're not pretty but they're so functional and solid

I bought an ex council house

Big porch with cupboards for storage
Under stairs storage
Downstairs toilet
Kitchen, dining room, living room
Big hallway with an airing cupboard and an extra cupboard with rails/shelves
3 big bedrooms and main bathroom
Huge loft

Now in a new build 2 bed apartment
Got 2 bathrooms but absolutely no storage for a Hoover or ironing board
Luckily I live alone so I've turned the spare room into a messy but functional gym/wardrobe/storage

For a similar property/similar location? How annoying? I suppose you had to move.

Except most developers dodge them.
Also the standards for building are only complied with as far as developers wish. I listened to a record of our local authority planning committee in which the officer advising the councillors said that although the design of a new estate wasn't up to the standards the authority set, they'd have to accept it and at least the developer was "one of the better ones".
Developers basically do exactly whatever the fuck they want, regardless of any "rules" they are supposed to follow.

Sorry if it read like a bash - not at all. I’m annoyed at people pretending paying full subsidised rent is the same as paying full non-subsidised rent. Both are paying the full amount, just one of the amount is lower than the market amount.

Yes Brilliant........................if you have kids. If you dont its a poky one bedroom flat that becomes a sauna every summer

The council know their houses are required for all sorts of different family set ups. Like a PP said above 2x bunk beds per room with homes with children. Adults requiring care or requiring special mobility/ care related aids which need plenty of room - much cheaper than having to build an extension on.

Developers build for profit. Tiny shoe boxes crammed together with 1cm gaps between neighbours walls so they are "detached". Developers build as many as they can possibly fit, cry poverty when it comes to putting in the infrastructure and paying the community levy paying lawyers huge sums of money to wriggle out of having to pay anything that harms the profit margin and then move on to the next postage stamp size of land and repeat.

I would support a government willing to bring in a law which forces all developers to have to build the infrastructure for their proposed developments FIRST, then pay the community levy and THEN and ONLY THEN are they allowed to build.

I pay full rent on my HA home....not my fault it's less than it costs to rent privately. Oh and people in private rent in receipt of UC also get their rent subsided by the taxpayer, but you know that and just needed an excuse to bash those in social housing.

I wish that was true. My rent went up when I moved from private to HA. My council tax also went up.

CIL or S106 payments from developers will pay for a lot of infrastructure. There are a lot of regulations governing mix, density and property sizes (as well as other things) in public and private sector. Location is also a consideration - urban / rural / greenfield / brownfield etc.