to tell you that the tories are removing affordable housing to make their 'starter homes' policy work?

[Politicat]

I've namechanged as I post a lot of personal stuff and this is a wider issue.

Here in the news

And here's what Shelter has to say

So that's removing the obligation for big developers like Bovis and Wimpy to pay local councils 'section 106' money - to 'provide contributions to offset negative impacts caused by construction and development'. This money is used for affordable social housing (so rental and shared ownership) and local community and environmental infrastructure (like schools for the residents of a development).

The money 'saved' by developers from this will by a gentleman's agreement and not in statute be passed on to make 'starter homes' which will be available to under 40s for a 20% discount.

But no affordable homes will be build, and no social housing.

So anyone in need of this can fuck off out to the middle of nowhere.

And the large companies already doing very nicely-thank-you-very-much will get a discount on their fancy inner city developments and fuck our cities over even more.

And build homes with no integrated shops, schools or parks.

So everyone in them will have to drive everywhere.

I am absolutely steaming that they can sell this as them creating more housing.

Well, building 200,000 houses is quite clearly creating more housing- by anyone's definition. There are people- mostly young professionals- who will greatly benefit from the scheme.

But yes, these homes are not going to help homeless families or people on the minimum wage.

Which is obviously a problem.

We need starter homes and social housing.

I really don't get this "housing shortage". There are loads of city living one bedrooms apartments being built all over the place.

Your thread title is over simplistic and pretty misleading.
Section 106 contributions are used for a range of things, but developers will still be responsible for providing certain amenities as part of their planning permission.

Also, a lot of councils are sitting on enormous 106 reserves.
Southwark council is a London borough with huge depravation and housing waiting lists
In 2013-14, they received over £100m in Section 106 commitments, and collected £20m in cash. They have spent less than half of what they collected. Same story every year…

Read their own report here

So councils aren't all crying out for the money, but many of them are crying out for houses that are affordable for first time buyers.
So YABU and slightly hysterical.

Happy to be proved wrong on what will happen.

I'm not against them building cheaper homes but I am against the lack of affordable homes in inner cities for families.

I don't think I'm being hysterical if even Shelter are sounding alarms on this.

I live in Southwark. I'm not party to or narrating on what they may or may not have done with their 106 money, but on the ground there is a massive problem with families being able to live in the place they work.

I know people well off enough to afford three bed flats.
I know people who've lived in the north of the borough a while and have social housing.
I know people who have moved out because there isn't anything in between except 'luxury' apartments with two beds not suitable for families, and mostly bought for investment.
I'm lucky enough to have a house bought before it went mental. You couldn't buy a two bed flat now with the same budget and deposit.

Those people I know in social housing are without exception facing big problems in the long term because their rents are being increased by housing associations and pegged to 'market' rents. Social housing is dying out - even the housing associations are behaving like sharks with their housing in the inner city which is suddenly worth so much compared to just a few miles out of town. Friends with children are worrying, the single parents I know are all considering moving further out because their rents aren't going to be feasable on one income. They will lose the support of close family and they will become commuters.

The upshot will be that it will only be the very very poor or very very rich in the middle of towns. Everyone will be commuting.

I really do think big business is going to benefit here and not people needing starter homes or affordable homes or social housing.

What is really riling me is that they are trusting big businesses to pass on these savings to people. Just like businesses pass on savings when energy prices go down, or when they pay workers so little that they are forced to claim benefits to make up a living wage.

I think I'm getting more radical as I get older.
I'll go and take a chill pill now

I obviously didn't know you (also) live in Southwark, but you have probably also seen first hand that the piles and piles of 106 money they already have is making little difference in tackling the housing issues.

I therefore don't follow your argument that building housing specifically aimed at helping first time buyers staying in the borough, but without adding the mountain of unspent money, is going to mean there is less affordable housing. It just doesn't make any sense.

I actually didn't know there was a stockpile of 106 in Southwark - and that's a different issue which obviously needs tackling.

I'm thinking wider here

I don't like the idea of taking money away from social housing, but me and DP are 29 and 30, and are still years and years away from owning our own home. We're both on enough money that we aren't eligible for any help from the state, but we're stuck in rented accommodation. Trying to start a family when you are at risk of having to move every 6 months is pretty daunting, and I appreciate any help that can be given to ensure that people like me have a chance of some stability.

Completely Agree there needs to be a plan Jessica147.

There also needs to be a proper reassessment of rented accommodation to allow for good renters to stay long term in rental. We rented for 15 years and would have stayed happily if the behaviour of the rental agents hadn't been so heavy handed

Nearly all of the 'starter homes' and Help to Buy round our way are AT LEAST 25% more expensive than already-built houses with the same number of bedrooms. It is a bloody rip off by builders and the Government.

I just tend to have the opinion that like many government schemes or party promises....if were are elected we will do xyz etc that these are schemes or promises that are mostly designed to 'look good' rather than actually 'do much good'. I think its high time that the governments start actually doing what is necessary rather than just what think will look good or line their pockets!

Rant over!

PS: I may have PMT

My local council is desperate to get rid of their council homes.
They have just upped the tenant discount - there are 3/4 bed Homes being sold to tenants for £30k.

Sorry to keep labouring this point,but it really isn't 'a separate issue'
It is the title of your thread.

You are saying it is an either/or situation. Either homebuilders are allowed to forgo 106 contributions to make cheaper houses, OR we get affordable housing built, and other community amenities.

That is simply.not.true.

There are clearly structural issues with our housing market but I can't follow your argument that a small reduction in 106 makes it worse