Social housing on new build estates

[pangeapanda]

I’m absolutely not looking for a bun fight on council housing tenants, we’re classed as living in affordable housing (shared ownership).

We live on a new build estate, it’s a mix of outright owned/mortgaged, shared ownership & social housing. From what I understand, a certain percentage of new homes have to be allocated for affordable housing or council housing. I imagine they’re moving away from building entirely socially housed ‘council estates’ now?

Half of the estate is houses, a line of part owned properties then quite a few blocks of social housing apartments. I guess my question is, why do they segregate the council tenants from the home owners? I thought they’d be more likely to pepper them throughout the estate now to avoid pockets of antisocial behaviour.

There’s a clear divide between the estate and one side is noticeably less nice. At the same time, some of the houses sell for nearly 500k so people might be apprehensive, rightly or wrongly, about buying where there may be a lot of turnover or perceived antisocial behaviour.

Is there a reason they lump all the affordable housing together then? And should it be considered a good thing?

The people I have known who grew up in SH are the worst snobs about it. Even now at a great age they still have massive chips on their shoulders. They haven’t bought a house anywhere particularly sought-after but my God they like to think they’ve arrived. Full of sniping.

Yes you're right, its domestic violence that is much higher. Also not all couples will be married so we need to think of separation between long term partners as well as divorce.

If you move away from your entire support network (military or otherwise), it can be extremely hard to find reliable wraparound childcare to enable you to work. Even with flexible hours. Women suffer the most from this. I see women every day in this position as they've moved to London for work that is now more burdensome than beneficial.

I know a woman who bought her tiny council house in the thatcher years who has torn apart her family with her bitterness and chipiness about who gets her “inheritance”- she’s not even dead yet and has been doing it since she was 40.

the wannabes are always the worst. Give them a sliver of life outside SH and they think they’re princess Micheal of Kent.

After reading this thread I am wondering why anyone would buy on a large new build estate?

If you want 'new'surely you would choose a small development exempt from social housing? Or a refurb?

Because people want to live in certain locations? And those locations have estates on them?

they're not all brand new estates, I don’t know why people keep saying that.

This model has been in place for properties built since the late 1990s. It’s a significant portion of housing stock in many areas, and the proportion of housing stock they represent will only increase further over time, giving you less and less choice

I don’t think I’m a princess my rent is way higher than sh and for a tiny home, if anything they’re better off than me and half of them don’t even appreciate it and just trash and terrorise the neighbourhood then moan that anyone complaining is a “snob”

Absolute insanity that some people get given a super cheap rent home for doing nothing, not sure why it’s still even a thing

@BambamhoohooPresumably that poster wasn’t an anti social nightmare though. Nobody is against normal, nice people in SH. But it is a fact that this type of housing also has a disproportionate number of anti social tenants and there are no real consequences for them making everyone’s lives a nightmare.

You can find small new developments in many locations and all other types of properties I still don't get why you would choose a large estate? What do they offer over the other properties?

yes And how much time have we spent talking about them and their dastardly ways?

Compare to how much time we’ve spent talking about the general public dastardness - drugs taking sofa dumping and how we have to live amongst them even when they have mortgages or a private landlord.

people will always notice and see what they want to see. It’s prejudice

I mentioned upthread that my PILs bought one where the affordable housing provision was sited elsewhere, so something like that could work. As with anything, I guess it's easier to be picky when your budget is bigger - their new estate is quite luxe.

Plenty of people do that I’m sure.

not everyone is the same. Plenty of people (inc myself) couldn’t care less about living next to social housing.

I know one who grew up in a council-owned house with a feckless father who is now idolised in death. Managed to buy a small place in an undesirable area then has moved a few more times. Could never have managed the mortgage payments on any of the houses without lying, cheating and stealing. She sits in judgement making vile comments about who lives where. Her morals don’t align with mine.

Do you know what disproportionate means? I live in a privately rented flat rn walls are super thin if someone was an issue I would know, everyone is super nice unlike the neighbours at my mums ha house. Yes there are a few non sh assholes but for one a raging dysfunctional piece of shit is unlikely to be able to take a mortgage and landlords are fussier than ever so the purest type of cunt is most likely to live in sh. That’s not me saying all people in sh are like that btw so don’t twist it

As I have already said, only 15% of British households are social housing. They are clearly not responsible for all, or most, of the ASB or neighbourhood problems in the uk

Friend of a friend lives in a million pound house. Her kids are so awful the police are often called round to break up fights.

Perhaps the solution to this isn't about spreading out or peppering properties on the estates. There are well behaved and badly behaved people from all walks of life. Perhaps the council should have a '3 strikes and you're evicted' rule when it comes to SH properties. This leaves the law abiding ones to enjoy the same peace and quiet that other law abiding home owners/renters enjoy.

There could be a ghettoised area for all the evicted ones to be placed in - that way they really are among each other and can make as much noisas and chaos as they want.

The problem though is what happens to the home owners who aren't law abiding - who removes them from the area or do they get to terrorise the place because they own their properties? That's the million pound question.

I know of a situation which isnt yet resolved but a homeowner has been charged with maliciously harassing their SH neighbour. Mainly through malicious reporting to various authorities. It will go to court.

I know the SH tenant doesnt want to move and I also know if the person concerned was a SH tenant, they'd be forced to move should they be found guilty. It will be indeed interesting to see what happens.

Yes this is the problem. Maybe they should be made to pay a fine/compensation to the SH tenant each time they do. That might make them decide to move out themselves or change their ways.

You won’t witness it, but many housing associations do this.

Housing associations were often set up by rich benefactors (bleeding heart liberals) who wanted to support slum clearance or provide housing for locals in need. This was very often built on the agreement that if you’re a good tenant we’ll leave you alone but if you abuse the system we won’t.

there are a few practical issues- evict a family from social housing and where do they go? Almost always they go into emergency temporary accommodation which is very expensive and also, obviously, next door to some nice homeowner 😂

evict a single person and where do they go? Often sofa surfing, disrupting other households and impacting their outcomes negatively. Sometimes hostels, which by the way, nice homeowners also live next to.

Housing associations evict people who abuse their properties with asb, rent arrears or criminal behaviour. They don’t do it because the homeowner next door doesn’t like looking at dumped sofas or smelling weed.

I find that hard to believe

Find some data then

@BambamhoohooIt’s not prejudice to point out the obvious. Anti social, dysfunctional people are a small part of the whole population and they’re disproportionately represented in areas with SH. So a percentage within that 15% sounds about right. There might be some problem people that are home owners but on the whole, you don’t get the same kind of chaos in privately owned areas as you do in SH areas. You just don’t. I’ve lived in all kinds of areas in different parts of the country and these patterns are replicated everywhere. Anyone with eyes and a brain knows it, no matter how much some people like to twist things and call people snobs.

Also, nobody in the social housing beside where I used to live got evicted despite being known drug dealers, smashing doors during arguments and repeatedly disturbing the peace by shouting at each other at 3am.
I don’t know what you actually have to do to get evicted but it seems the bar for acceptable behaviour is almost non existent.

It’s more than 15% living in social housing and btw it’s actually a relatively small percentage of the population who are criminals way less than 15% so kind of irrelevant even if true.

The most dysfunctional shitshow of an individual isn’t going to be able to get a mortgage and landlords are very fussy these days so the most messed up people will usually be in social housing. That’s not the same as saying everyone in social housing is bad obviously but there’s no denying what I’ve just said

The drug dealers didn’t get arrested either, presumably?

@Greenh i have no idea what you mean by your last post 😂