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?

But since so many new builds have a reputation for poor workmanship and are built so shoddily I’m not convinced they are everyone’s idea of a dream house. I know many are expensive and viewed as premium properties but many of the higher earners I know who have substantial budgets wouldn’t touch a new build with a barge pole. They want Victorian / Georgian houses or if they have a lower budget (like me) a 1930s semi or detached. This is in London/SE so obviously everything has to be put into that context. When my former neighbour was looking just outside London she did eventually ‘settle’ for a new build because she couldn’t get the period property she wanted.

You know, these new builds arent going up in the nicest areas. And certainly not with SH tenants unless they cleverly restrict it to accommodation for over 50s.

they do. As well as going up in the nicest areas they also often are thrown up on random fields, building an entirely new community next to an existing village or town. So a neutral area, if you like.

Of course they do. And if large enough estate they have no choice but to put social housing on there too. The nicest towns have to expand too.

As with the example of the area I am wanting to move to, the boomers or those sitting in the nicest existing houses are not selling up, they have a desirable forever home. So naturally these areas expand to meet demand where there is space available to build on. The only ones coming available are the 1st step on the ladder homes or the newly built so fresh on the market homes.

Your imitate area is not exactly how things are for the whole of the uk

I'm a high earner and hate period properties. I find many of them just as generic as people claim new builds to be. We went down the self-build route to get the property we wanted. There's no need to settle for anything if budget is no issue.

If you look at the top 10 or 20 areas in the UK according to affluence, or the top postcodes, do you believe that those areas have new build developments where there will be SH tenants that aren't carefully curated?

I do not. I can see in London where these developments are going up and it isn't the nicest areas by any means. They are meant to offer soke form of luxury living in mediocre areas (relatively).

It's not social housing, it's affordable housing.

The 2 big distinctions are the ongoing cost, with social rents for actual council houses being roughly half of what you'd spend on a shared ownership property.

The other one is the barriers to entry. You still need a reasonable deposit, associated fees and credit in order to get into a SO property. You only need to pass lower affordability checks for social housing and there's no upfront cost so no barrier. If you are in priority need and get a place you will be moved in with no cost.

I do not know anyone for whom budget is ‘no issue’. I know high earners, consider myself to be one as well, but most people’s budgets are not limitless. If they were they yes, obviously you could self-build or live anywhere you wanted to.

Period properties have distinct architectural styles and often come with unique features so by definition are not generic. You can’t compare them to new builds.

You need to look at the definitions.

There is no debate to be had, affordable housing which includes shared ownership is a social housing tenure.

No one is comparing them to new builds. My description of 'generic' refers to the thousands of identical period properties situated on endless roads across every town and city across the UK - for example, the Victorian terraces you referred to. There's nothing 'unique' about any of them.

My parents bought a Victorian terrace in Hackney in the 1980s. None of the houses on the street looked identical and that remains the case today. I can’t speak for other areas but only of my own experience living in East London and studying housing from the Victorian period. Houses rarely looked the same because they were not developed in a uniform way and they often have elaborate ornate features, corniche, completely different designs etc. If walk around the area now I can still see the differences. It may be different elsewhere.

People in social housing can be a nightmare especially when people with drink or drug problems live in clusters.
However, I have also experienced this with private ownership. The grotty family, with the fridge and washing machine dumped in the overgrown garden; the party couple who had loud music and lots of gatherings at the weekends (late into the night) and the odd couple who were always picking on the kids and causing constant rows. Shouting matches really. So it isn't just social housing. I lived in what should have been a quiet cul de sac, but the teenagers hung around in big groups making noise and leaving a mess

London again 🥱

No i am asking you where these areas rate on a list of affluent areas so we are on the same page about "nice".

Indeed. These are very sought over houses. The problem is that most cannot afford the upkeep or lack of insulation that comes with the restrictions you have on windows and the like.

Ok. So there’s a difference between having a mortgaged, part ownership of the house. You are responsible for all repairs. You have to sell the house if you want to move. Very similar to being a regular home owner in that respect.

Her neighbours are all council tenants, have no responsibility for the upkeep of the homes and bare none of the costs, so literally don’t give a shit if it goes to disrepair or if the frontage of the house looks like crap. They don’t need to worry about selling the property to move, it’s a constant revolving door of tenants - not people who are living there for 5 years like my sister.

You can identify differences all you like. It’s still social housing.

sheltered housing- only available for over 55s, warden on site, communal entertainment area, totally different! It’s Still social housing.

Sure - she lives in social housing - calling it that doesn’t change any of the points I’ve made though does it?

It does. Your sister slags off social housing when she lives in it. Hypocritical

”unbeknownst to her she’s mixed in with the social housing”

she IS the social housing

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Can you honestly not see the difference between part-ownership, which is part mortgage and where the owner bares all the costs for repairs, responsibility for maintenance, selling the property etc and a council owned property with council tenants who don’t need to worry about any of the above?

Your insistence that all social housing is the same is mystifying.

Because she thinks she’s better than them. She’s not.

that’s the whole point of the thread- stereotypes and falsehoods about social housing tenants, unsurprisingly often from those who are in or close to being in social
housing themselves

Bambamhoohoo do you own a property?

You know some of those buyers living in rural homes near SH are people from inner cities and other places where they have been forced out because they couldn't afford to rent privately or buy close to where they were raised too? Only they have to spend a small fortune for their home, it's not subsidised.

Why?

Your comments