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?

With so little knowledge 😭 they’re not even council tenants, they rent from a housing association

Shared ownership literally is social housing. There is no argument that it’s not

how is she defining part ownership?

Of course but that's not what you said in your previous post.

Well because I think it goes without saying that if you genuinely have choice and have chosen to live next to SH tenants, then you deal with the good and bad of that

Exactly. I think your posts are perfectly clear

Completely agree. I don't think many private home owners have an issue with most social hosing tenants though. Clearly the comments on this thread don't reflect that but then people are far more likely to comment if they've personally had bad experiences. MN in general hates new build estates anyway. I've never lived on one so I can't comment in that regard.

Why do you immediately jump to anti social behaviour. Many “ council estates” are now over 50 % owned, some private rents and some council rents. The council rents tend to be better maintained, as private rents and owned don’t have to stay up to date with new regulations. Councils and housing associations do. If you’re being sniffy about council tenants I suggest you don’t buy in new mixed market estates. Most council/ housing associations tenants also have to abide by restrictive tenancies. From past experience as a tenant in housing association, it was the owners of surrounding properties that were territorial, rude and quite prepared to moan and complain about anything and everything, even though their dog barked at least 18 hours a day in the back garden. Dreadful neighbours. I was glad to get away from them, and so was the next two lots of tenants. The housing association sold the house, as nothing could be done about the owner occupying neighbours.

I'm not looking at areas like London or any city. I would never want to live in London.
I'm looking in nice low crime areas. Where I live now is a low crime area and no SH, there are detached houses here that tick boxes and I could afford and not many new build estates so very easy to avoid any SH in my price range.

But I want to move either close to certain family members. with an easier work commute, or a coastal town I love. Family area is known as a posh area and didnt use to have any SH. But it has expanded and many of the houses on the market now are new build and are the expensive houses available. The lower cost ones have no SH in the streets but they are not quite what i want. The ones build previously on little cul de sacs or detached 1 off houses just ain't coming up for sale. If 1 comes up it is gone in a couple of days. The coastal area doesn't have any new build areas yet. There is planning permission for hundreds coming in where SH tenants will get to live in 1 of the best areas right by the beach. Right now that area is priced in the traditional way where if you by in the SH area then you get a lot of house for your money and could get somewhere way under my budget. Done a drive around to check the area out and nope area ruled out. I just need to sell mine and move out to a rental so I'm ready to pounce when the right house comes up as seems many buyers are looking for the same thing so they go too quickly.

Anyway my point wasn't what I can afford, or that I will have to move to a SH area, as I won't. My point was that these new build estates that this post was started about are not the cheapest in the area by a long shot. Some of the most expensive houses are being build on them. More expensive that most of the ones that currently exist or are available. People buying cheaper areas are actually able to avoid living by SH easier as the SH are now being build among the most expensive houses. Not everywhere is like London. People buying on these new sites are not living by SH as that is all they can afford. Their choice to buy there though, but it wasn't due to affordability

So are you saying that they have to pay a lot of money (relatively) because they want to live near friends and family who happen to live in these areas where there is SH? And they could easily afford somewhere else, but the proximity to family and friends is of a greater priority?

Do you apply the same logic to those looking for social housing in eg London?

You have no assetts. You cannot afford to buy on the open market. Your income is insufficient to rent privately. The LA does not offer enough social housing. So why don’t you relocate to social housing in the North East which will cost the London LA a lot less than putting you up in a hotel?

I have a lot of sympathy for that idea btw. It gives people a home and offers stability for their children. No moving around. No living in temporary accommodation. But the champagne socialists tell me this is social cleansing and therefore a BAD thing.

The simple reason is that the place you have libed for x amount of time has the responsibility of housing you. I don't think some council up north should have to take on a family from Tottenham.

I think the upside to all this is that whilst new build developments have some pockets of ASB, whole sink estates will eventually stop existing.
I’ve recently left a new build development. Where my house was you could hear a pin drop and owls hooting at night or just the deer snuffling around. But 300 metres away was fly tipping and trashed houses. I don’t begrudge anyone decent housing but this estate is really nice and literally borders a national trust property. It’s a shame.
also I know owners over that side struggled to sell.

No, but Tower Hamlets Council can pick up the tab. You can buy a house in the NE for £60,000 - less than the cost of 12 months B&B in TH. Some LAs already do this.

According to your logic, these people do not have the assets to make the choice to live in London and should just deal with the consequences. They should accept the move and be grateful.

They is me as it was me you was saying can only afford to live near SH, but i don't live near SH nore do I need to live near SH.

I was saying that your point of anyone only being able to afford SH is not always the case. In the seaside town I mentioned with the traditional SH setup this would be true as the less affordable houses are all the SH areas. In my near family area, this is a posher area where no SH ever existed in the whole little town. Now these new estates are being built with big expensive houses among the new SH. It isn't down to affordability they are living with SH as people who can afford less in that area will not have to live near SH. SH are being build in the most expensive estates.

You keep rabbiting on repeating your point, ignoring the fact that in many areas, SH are being build on new expensive estates. Those wanting a new build house have to live near SH unless it is a very small build site so accept due to number of houses built. If there were no new houses built there still wouldn't be any SH in that area to this day. This isn't a cheap or high crime area, it is a beautiful place where people sitting in their nice little cul de sacs or detached properties have usually bought as their forever home. The cheaper houses come up to the market as people upsize, these are not near SH. This is true of many areas where new build sites exist. It's not affordability, it is buying new build or old. But the old expensive houses coming available are like gold dust

Having experienced living in private housing alongside social housing I can tell you it’s a nightmare. Lovells the builders allocated a percentage of the estate to social housing amongst private housing. They then couldn’t sell enough properties so they sold them to the social housing system. This then meant that the majority of the properties were social housing with a few
private houses scattered between them. The people in the social properties just do not have the same living standards as people that can afford to buy. The local prostitute thought nothing of coming out the house as urinating on her front lawn. one evening she was strewn across the bonnet of a car taking photos of her private parts. Her windows were smashed a few times. Cars were torched, drug dealing and break in”s were the norm. Arguments between them were an everyday occurrence and one house had 7 dogs, not wanting to walk them they were let out early morning barking, running around and leaving poo everywhere. It really affected my mental health as there just wasn’t any peace. Then of course there’s the chance of being in negative equity. We had to stay there for a few years as we were unable to sell. The day I walked away was heaven.

Yes theyre being built there because we need homes and there is space to build homes there. The choice you may have is to move elsewhere if you can afford it. If not, accept that the best area you can afford is in close proximity to SH tenants.

Well it sounds good in principal.
Developers have many ways to back down providing the committed social housing.
A 2025 “Affordable Housing Blueprint” for district councils uses updated data to estimate that, in district areas:

Policy-compliant share: ~34% affordable

Actual where viability is used: ~18%

On 52,100 homes built in district areas in one year, that gap equates to around 17,700 affordable homes “missing” relative to stated policy.

Missing the point, yet again, that buying on the new build estates does not mean that is because 'all you can afford is to live near SH'. These estates are often the site of luxury houses of high value. Rarely the cheapest houses in a wider area.

People spending much less can afford to not live near SH in these areas as SH did not exist in the wider areas before.

If you want a luxury house in many desirable areas, you either have to play the long waiting game for someone in the larger older homes to move or die, or you buy a new house that is more readily available. If you go new you will be paying through the nose while SH tenants are automatically leveled up without the sacrifices to get there. It is nothing to do with affordability.

You’re saying the same thing.

if a house- luxury or not- is by social housing and you can’t or don’t want to live elsewhere, then you’re exactly where you belong.

as I said above I live on a large house in a mixed estate. It’s worth about £800k. Of course I could buy elsewhere. It’s not the only option.

but it is the option if I want school catchment, nice part of town, close to transport and green space.

so again, I’m exactly where I belong. For what I need and can afford* I’m on a mixed estate

*of course if I were far richer I could live in the McMansion village next door and send my children private and I certainly wouldn’t have any social housing nearby. But I can’t afford that.

It does make me chuckle when wealthy blow-ins move to a place like East London and then complain because it doesn’t fit in with their delusion of what the area ‘should’ be like. I read recently that residents in Hackney have started a petition protesting about a new Aldi supermarket due to open on Hackney Road. I knew before reading the article that ringleaders would be from the leafy nearby streets. They are unhappy because Aldi will attract “certain types” of people who are undesirable and cause a public nuisance (they are basing this on the fact that the Lidl near Hackney Central has drug dealers and heavy drinkers outside). Laughably they are claiming Hackney Road is a unique space and not a standard high street and so shouldn’t have a budget supermarket as it is not needed. They are conveniently forgetting Hackney currently has the worst child deprivation rate in the entire country and half the borough lives in poverty! These people want the culture and vibrancy of East London but not the reality of living in a deprived area.

Oh do come on! Where will Tim and Billy set up their artisan cheese stall if there is an aldi nearby?! They’re totally priced out of Clapham now, poor loves.

You can buy a house anywhere in the country. There are plenty of places to buy if budget isnt much of an issue.

Hackney is more expensive than Clapham I think.

Seems not

That other poster was making out that you would have to be buying in a high crime, poor area with a low budget to avoid living near SH. I was pointing out that it is not the case now the new build housing estates are in the mix. That these are often the larger homes that many professionals such as nurses, teachers and the equivalent could only dream of affording, so are not the ones that lower earners are buying.

Yeah I do get that it is a choice, just like you made the choice to buy a new build and seem happy with your home. Plus many other professionals will be happy to buy them too. But it will put some buyers off that they will have to work their way up or pay very high mortgages to get there, when they see others just get given it. But agree that are the choices the buyers make, so get what your saying.

I'll just wait it out for an older house to come up