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

We are in this type of social housing.
Our house is massive for being a 3 bed, the kitchen diner, fits a massive table and a sofa too, we have plenty of storage etc. only build a couple of years ago.
Our housing officer said that where they can they give these houses to families with 4 kids or with several adults living in them. We only have 3 kids but got lucky I guess! There are only 3 others like ours on the estate we are on and they all have 4 kids or our neighbours is 2 parents and their 2 grown children with additional needs who will likely never move out.
Downside is our rent is more expensive. UC does cover it, but if we get to a point where we earn enough to not need UC it will be a stinger.

I think on one side the regulations are tighter and the other is the council aren't profit driven, it's in their best interest to have good quality housing.

Also councils won't have bought that land at market value let's be realistic here. That's why councils get house builders to build their houses for them.

The building requirements for social housing are really strict - they even govern minimum kitchen cupboard storage, worktop space, storage within the house generally etc

Because private buyers usually buy atleast a bedroom bigger than they need. Ours started out as a 5/6bedroom. It's now technically a 4 as the 6th bedroom has been added to ours as a walk in wardrobe and the 5th is the gym giving us 4 good sized doubles. Most of the new builds near us have the smallest bedroom next to master for this reason.

I rented a ‘bellway’ new build for a while last year - I was genuinely appalled by the lack of care with the finishes, poor quality of the build and the minimum (to the mm) size of the rooms.

My cousin is an architect who’s done some work on new council houses recently and he was telling me he was impressed by how high spec the requirements were in terms of soundproofing + storage etc

new build developers are in it for the short term profit.

councils are trying to maximise medium to long term value out of a property.

———-

in terms of ‘community investment’ - it’s a box ticking exercise from developers. The council, again, have to think bigger picture because ultimately they’re funding schools etc.

Spend a hot summers day baking in the echoing heat of new-build development - while those plastic wrapped baby trees wilt uselessly. It becomes apparent very quickly to me they weren’t built for human happiness.

I work in this field

It's because social housing is subject to minimum space standards amongst other things and therefore the houses have to be built with certain space requirements including bedroom size

Private housing isn't subject to these requirements - there is no minimum space standards and therefore can be built as small as they can get away with

In the U.K. houses tend to be marketed (and valued) based on number of bedrooms - whereas in the USA for example tends to be more based on square footage. So there is further incentive to squeeze more bedrooms into the same footprint

As written by a PP: Because one is for profit and one isn't.

I always wonder how much faux-naïveté is going on when social housing tenants claim that they pay rent « like everybody else » : they actually pay a highly subsided rent and the same property would cost way more without the council’s subsidy (ie taxpayers money).

Exactly. The 'new' build estate where I live has enough housing for a few thousand people. A school was built by the developers, which had to be extended to add several classrooms within about 10 years because they'd built the smallest size they could get away with. The catchment area shrunk as the estate grew, but the new houses were marketed as being within catchment at the time. Playparks in the privately bought areas were promised, years after the development was completed they finally emerged after a campaign by residents. And the most controversial thing, shops, which have never been built despite the first houses in the estate being built nearly 20 years ago.

The social housing in the estate (a fraction of the overall amount of housing) got a playpark right away. The flats have individual gardens, and there are bungalows. None of these types of properties are available to private buyers because it wouldn't be as profitable for the builders.

But it remains a very nice area to live, and there are great amenities nearby.

I'm not convinced of this, from what I've seen the developers often wriggle out of these potential payments.

I think that the developers are well versed in knowing how to word these things - unfortunately council's often don't see through them.
.

The council has tighter regulations to abide by

@DragonFly98 that's interesting that there is a limit on number of children sharing a room regardless of its size.

Where I lived they had 2 DC in a single room which was too small for standard sized beds after the rewiring was surface mounted - they had to buy shorty bunks!!

They had 5 DC, in tiniest 3 bed you can imagine, once the baby turned 1 they were overcrowded and did eventually get moved.

Honestly it was so small, impossible to have anything other than a very small dining table for 4.

Social housing is built for families to live in. Private are to sell and run

I dislike a lot of new builds. No built in storage, often no room to add wardrobes/good storage in bedrooms, 4/5 bed houses with a tiny living room/garden and 5 million en-suites to clean. I'd rather have less en-suites and a built in wardrobe!

Councils want to keep their tenants in one place and happy. I would bet even money these houses also have space for a lift to be put in if / when a tenant becomes disabled.

Councils want to keep their tenants in one place and happy. I would bet even money these houses also have space for a lift to be put in if / when a tenant becomes disabled.

Council houses are revenue neutral, the council has no incentive to either profit or lose money, it's role is to provide a fair quality service. As evidently this council has.

Wish I could get one of those OP 😀 sounds lush.

What a load of nonsense. There's an entire sub-industry busy helping developers to minimise/dodge their S106 obligations. Near me the developer was subject to a condition to deliver a road junction improvement before the estate was completed which they ignored. They applied to have it set aside nearly two years ago and the council hasn't decided, the estate is completed and all houses are occupied and no doubt the road improvements they agreed to will never get delivered.
It's all about fat bonuses for the bosses of the developers and dividends to shareholders and screw anyone everyone else.

The council want you to pack in as many kids as you can. The developer wants to make money and doesn’t care how many kids you house in it. This really isn’t a hard one.

Because a developer is in the business to make money!

Councils build houses to provide housing, that will last many changes of tenancy. The cost to build is not the prime concern that the developer has.

Profit, profit, profit.

I can assure you they are just about getting by and have been in a council property for many years, just because my dil can now work while kids in school does not mean they have any spare money for a mortgage deposit or a rent deposit , they live week to week

my daughter is a housing officer for the local council and she has said because of these high council rents and UC having a cap on rent so many people in arrears and being threaten with eviction

That's not true a 3 bed would be 6 and a half people ie 6 people and a baby. Not 8 kids and one or two adults.

Your comment will no doubt open up a whole other debate about why 2 people working are taking up social housing so be prepared!

it is cheap compared to private rent but for a council property compared to what council rent used to be I think this is high, my son and his wife both work so can manage the rent but it makes me wonder how people on UC can manage this when there is a rent cap