To think we need to start building upwards instead of expanding outwards.

[SeoultoSeoul]

I'm not talking about a return to hideous 60s housing blocks, but surely it would be more space effective to build some decent mid rise apartment blocks rather than continuing to destroy habitat and farmland by building new estates everywhere.

I'm lucky enough to live in a family sized house at the moment (there are 5 of us in it) but DH and I will downsize to a flat once the DC move on.

Until I bought my current house, I lived in 'apartment blocks'. On one I was on 3rd floor and absolutely hated my upstairs neighbours. They didn't do anything massively wrong, but they were very heavy footed and worked opposite schedules to me. I cried so many times from being disturbed by thumping around.
We also had balconies and they would wash theirs every week and ours would end up covered in all their dirty water.

Second one I lived in was great but no lift (we were only on first floor) which was a nightmare with a newborn as I was forever carrying the pram up and down the stairs (hadn't considered this when I bought the pram tbf so that's on me!).

There are a few very nice flats in our town with patio gardens downstairs and big balconies for upper ones. All facing onto a landscaped courtyard with the parking. It's very lovely.

The problem isn't flats but the usual execution of them in the UK.

I think more needs to be done to sort out property developers so that they actually provide what they should be providing.

In our village, we have been attacked by property developers because of its location. There's a plan going in place at the moment for an additional 500 homes. This is the third development in 5 years. If it gets approval, the population of the village will have increased by 70% which is insane. One of the biggest problems in my view is that the developers include plans for playgrounds/parks/doctors etc but then don't actually deliver.

The recent estate which was completed in 2020 made a big deal about how there would be a playground in the middle of the estate, but they've never done anything with it. It featured heavily in their initial marketing material. Even when we looked at a house a year ago they still talked about it, and in their office there were huge rendered drawings of it. However, a few months later when they were asked about it they simply shrugged and said "nothing to do with us, we've left the space - if you want it, you build it." Same with the space for the schools/doctors etc. The developers play heavily on the fact that they are including these necessities in their plans but don't actually deliver on it, and they never ever get called out on it.

Our local council will basically accept any planning application because they don't care. Because it's adjacent to a big town, they don't care that there are no schools/parks/doctors/dentists, etc because, in their view, residents can travel the 10 mins down the road into the neighboring local authority for those services.

Also, I think I read somewhere that the developers maintain priority for maintenance for 20 years - so in our council's eyes, they get all the money for council tax for 20 years without having to do anything at all. It's shocking!

The problem isn't flats but the usual execution of them in the UK.

yep

1 and 2 child households massively outnumber 3+ child households - almost 7 million vs 1.2 million in 2020 if I’ve read the stats correctly

@Lelliebellieboo as part of the planning application there is routinely section 106 obligations set out which means the developer typically pays contributions towards doctors/schools etc. It’s designed to mitigate (at least partially) the impact of the development on local resources. How and when the council decides to spend it, is down to them.

I’m not entirely sure I understand your last paragraph either? That developers maintain everything for 20 years? Because that’s definitely not true

I definitely agree with you in theory. And with regards to gardens - I think it is more outside space that people want which could be provided in the form of large balcony spaces and usable rooftop spaces. It would be challenging for young families to adapt to this though for places for children to run and play. Access also needs to be considered - so many flats have lifts which have been broken for years! Also sound insulation here is terrible in some older buildings which puts people off but the use of concrete for each floor comes with problems such as carbon footprint and impact on foundations.
Europe appears much better at this than we are here and I think a lot has to do with how people were raised and what they’re used to. I like flats but ended up in a house and I do think it feels more like a home than a place to put my head so I’m not sure how to overcome people’s personal preferences.

Honestly, unless you have young children, I find it easier to live in a (nice) flat than a house. So much less maintenance and less faff.

I do have a house, because with young children, a garden makes a world of difference, and it's not cost effective to move when they are getting older.

If things were built properly and rules about noise were stricter, I bet many people would actually enjoy their flat, with a terrace and a bit of communal space.

@countrytown

But in terms of reducing the demand on resources, natural and otherwise, it could be argued that people should but have more than 1 or 2 children

People in the UK don't have more than 2 dc though.

I have 3 🤪

[quote MiloAndEddie]@Lelliebellieboo as part of the planning application there is routinely section 106 obligations set out which means the developer typically pays contributions towards doctors/schools etc. It’s designed to mitigate (at least partially) the impact of the development on local resources. How and when the council decides to spend it, is down to them.

I’m not entirely sure I understand your last paragraph either? That developers maintain everything for 20 years? Because that’s definitely not true[/quote]
hmmm I must have misread something then.

Although I do remember years ago asking our council to do something years ago and them refusing, saying that it was the developer who had to do it. But as I say, our local council is absolutely shoddy! haha!

@SleepingStandingUp but statically that's not the norm.

statistically

Also, nice flats are expensive. I was paying about the same in my 2 bed 'apartment' with single designated parking space as I am for my 3 bed house with front and back garden, garage and off street parking.

When I'm older I'd love to live in a nice flat. Less maintenance, cheaper, more secure. However I'm put off by

• poor soundproofing
• dodgy leasehold arrangements, management rip off charges, crap service from the management company
• worry about shared maintenance bills, e.g. cladding, roof
• lack of outdoor space. I'd be happy with communal space if everyone respected it

Basically there's just been so many horror stories about living in flats. I'll be like loads of older people and try to find a nice little bungalow.

[quote MiloAndEddie]@Lelliebellieboo as part of the planning application there is routinely section 106 obligations set out which means the developer typically pays contributions towards doctors/schools etc. It’s designed to mitigate (at least partially) the impact of the development on local resources. How and when the council decides to spend it, is down to them.

I’m not entirely sure I understand your last paragraph either? That developers maintain everything for 20 years? Because that’s definitely not true[/quote]
...and there is an entire industry dedicated to helping developers dodge the various S106 provisions - even consultancies devoted to it. Like Lelliebellieboo my town is besieged by new estates - 3000+ new houses with zero infrastructure. The Council won't bother to rect until the next crisis of traffic, education provision etc. The "planning" isn't planning at all, it's a way to employ a few people to rubber stamp anything developers want to do.

How about we just bring in rules to deal with all the empty property already sitting around doing nothing - and that includes everything from investment properties owned by offshore companies/overseas investors and those becoming derelict due to neglect. There are houses in our village that haven't been lived in for all the 29 years I've lived here - including a new build that was never finished and is now derelict!

I agree that investors shouldn't be allowed to leave homes sitting empty any more. Locally, someone used EU money to build a large office block in a residential area, its never been used.

Well built flats could be a decent size, have a balcony, the building could have indoor sports facilities and a roof garden. They don't have to be pokey boxes.

@MiloAndEddie

I love these kind of threads!

‘Build flats! That’s what we need!’

Don’t live in one themselves though

ha! this. ^^

YABU

it’s impossible to take anyone seriously saying that more people should live in flats when they themselves live in a nice family home with garden.

YABU

And selfish. Build up is always said by people with gardens.

Only 8% of the UK is built on. If we made that 10% we could house everybody.

People want a garden and to be able to park. These things don’t have to be big gardens or grand garages just a bit of space. And that’s fine.

Theres a stigma or judgement attached to living in flats. When we sold our ground floor garden flat and were specifically looking for a first floor (with attic room) flat, for me dh and our 2dc, everybody we spoke to questioned why on earth we woildnt look for a house.

Lots of flats going up around me but a lot will cost more than a small house on a new estate a couple of miles away.
I live on the south coast where lots of the large sea front properties have either been converted to flats or a row of them has been pulled down for larger new developments. Because of there position ie sea view and close to town they just aren’t affordable for first time buyers and even if they could scrap together enough deposit the service charges are eye watering expensive which is just not doable if you also have an eye watering mortgage to pay.

Yabu, families need houses- flats are restrictive, over priced, tied into a leasehold - awful!
We need affordable houses!!!
New build flats, open plan- all a con to get less space and for the council to get even more council tax!

Truly radical?
Ban second home onwership. reclaim abandoned buildings and homes. Encourage all employers who can to offer work from home so people can buy anywhere and be employed. all house bought for students to be reclaimed as family homes and the students who definitely don't garden to live in flats.
Of course you'd need a dictator to pull it off so not very plausible!

also the government to sort out the cladding issues and abolish leasehold