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?

I live in a new build estate, and the social/affordable is mixed in with the privately owned, in small
pockets. So there are for example a few social
houses together, between private properties

I think I have explained, but to be fair, you have blasted into a conversation that 90% didn’t include you, so maybe the answer lies in looking back at that posters posts which clearly set out her attitude to SH tenants

So in summary: you can’t explain how renting a property is “pulling up the ladder” so you’re directing me to look at the posters other posts to find the answer😂

You’re right actually, this conversation really had nothing to do with me so I’ll leave it there.

So in summary: you can’t explain how renting a property is “pulling up the ladder” so you’re directing me to look at the posters other posts to find the answer😂

You’re right actually, this conversation really had nothing to do with me so I’ll leave it there.

I was brought up on a council estate in the 70s and 80s, it was shit, anybody that looks back and thinks it was anything other than that is deluded,there were obviously decent people living there but the problem folk don't have to be in great numbers to affect the normal people's lives adversely.
I wouldn't buy on an estate like this it's asking for trouble, the house next door is privately rented and there's been good and bad, but I'd rather it wasn't, it just makes for better neighbours when the houses are owned, people are invested in their homes and environments 🤷

Because a person can legitimately be both and many are. They have various diagnoses of learning, social and mental health conditions as well as personality disorders.

I’m not on an estate, but a street, with a row of privately owned houses and then a row of social housing. We all gel together pretty well, know each others names, stop and chat for convos etc. But personally I’m glad they’re not mixed together because they all smoke! The older ones fags, the younger ones weed. Everyone sits on their doorsteps smoking. I couldn’t handle that. No one smokes in our row of owned houses. I grew up in a chain smoking household (also social housing) and the smell makes me sick.

I think you’ll find that every type of home dweller can be anti social. 🙄

The type of person you refer to is low life feckless who happens to be disabled.

I will say it again, it is insulting and a cop out to include the genuinely disabled in that group.

No it's usually that their preexisting learning and social difficulties coupled with trauma lead to personality disorders which make things like emotional regulation out of reach.

That sounds more like an individual with a feckless upbringing by unsuitable parents than a loved and cared for disabled person.

I stand by my point.

Just being brought up by unsuitable parents can literally disable you, yes.

I honestly find the way you’re taking so alien. So they’re not a “good disabled”?! Good disabled should be offended someone with a disability caused by their behaviour shared a feature with them? WTF?

but also do you know anything about trauma? You didn’t answer my question about care leavers.

But what difference does that make to their qualification for social housing?!

-you had shit parents- OUT
-you’re a good person who got disabled by a wayward Exxon lorry- IN!!

No. If you have a history of anti social behaviour or substance abuse - out. No social housing

Social housing should be for those who abide by the rules.

We live on a mixed estate of around 600 homes (built circa 1978) where the majority has always been owner-occupied but about a fifth started as social housing within defined blocks. It's a real mix now, some of the social housing has been sold so there is now owner-occupied mixed in with it, and some of the original owner-occupied is rented out by private landlords. There's very little vandalism or theft and we all live alongside each other happily.
There is 24 hour security provided by the management company who can be called at any time if necessary. Many owner occupiers have lived here for years which says something about how well it works.

My DD works in social housing & says they all dread new builds as they are usually shit & they are expected to perform wonders & shit miracles with them. Disgusting.

My son is a local authority planning officer and new large estates have to have a percentage of social housing ot can be up to 30% depending on the size of the development.

Known as the "Poverty pocket" sometimes. Usually at the back of the estate, smaller houses and flats. Its usually about 5% of the houses have to be affordable etc. It means councils get social housing built that they don't have the money for, so they just need them, regardless of size / location

You just don’t know about the issues cause they have the money to hide it theres drug dealers everywhere

In your position, I’d buy a flat somewhere nicer. The programme is called Location Location Location for a good reason. Don’t be fooled into thinking you’ll make more on a house, in the circumstances you are describing.

Yes I agree! I've viewed a few local planning apps where there has been enough houses on the plan to trigger a social housing obligation and there is not supposed to be any difference in the design or build type of them that would mark them out as "social" (& rightly so)

You say "rightly so". We do you think social housing tenants deserve the same housing spec as someone paying full retail price?

housing associations prefer an identifiable area of land than “pepperpotted” through an estate for a variety of reasons including funding, maintenance, ground rent etc.

Yes and why not? That sounds rather snobbish to suggest otherwise like the people who live in them are inferior and should be marked so.