To wonder why the council can build family friendly houses and developers can't!

[CariCari]

I live in a small village, increasing in popularity rapidly. In the last 5 years 2 new build estates have been built by private developers and one new council estate of about 40 houses has been built. Other than that the council has put massive investments into the village over the last decade (all the council houses have been re-rendered, school got an extension, community centre refurbed, new running track at the park and new play equipment plus some. We feel very lucky.

I have a friend with 3 children. She lives in one of the new build council houses and yesterday I went round for a cup of tea and omg these houses are so much better than any of the private houses that have been built around the same time.

All 3 bedrooms are doubles, 2 with double built in wardrobes the other with a single built in wardrobe. Lots of cupboard space, massive garden, drive way, very bright. Also not built in a style that will age too fast and seems to have some character!

It's also quiet, her garden backs on to fields, the estate has a little play park etc.

All the 3 bed semis built by the private developers have 2 bedrooms which are barely doubles, a tiny box room etc.

AIBU to wonder how a cash strapped council are able to build houses actually suitable for a family but private developers can't!! I'll be honest I'm very jealous of my friend!!

I've always loved social housing,, it's great.

The problem is, when I was growing up in a council house, people used to look down their noses at peoples who lived in council houses. Now I'm no longer living in one, every one wants one instead of private rented and people are envious!

Go put your name down for one of those lovely houses.

Money.

Because one is for profit and one isn't. Plus the council have to deal with the fall out of poor housing so want to minimise it.

Developers cram in as many houses that they can get permission for on a development to make as much profit as possible.

Also your friends house she would be expected to house up to 8 DC in it - 2 x bunk beds in each bedroom. Seriously the council are future proofing.

It’s worth bearing in mind that in all likelihood the “massive investments” in the locality which you’re praising the council for will at least in part have been funded by contributions from the developers as part of the planning process, and which directly impact on the viability of a scheme and therefore the size etc of units which they can provide

My son and his family have moved into a very similar property, they were moved from their previous house because of mould and and other issues that made the house uninhabitable , the house is great but so is the rent, there rent went up from £500 a month in previous house to £1400 a month, yes they are very lucky to have been rehoused but its not like the old days when council house rent was so cheap

On average, a development will change ownership three times before any profit is made. Councils, on the other hand, have a never ending source of revenue: You.

£1400 for a new 3 bed round here is cheap for rent

Interesting point. My friend is still paying marginally below market rate for a 3 bed (about £600 a month but we are in Scotland and rent is cheap!) this is about £100 a month more than in the older properties admittedly. However she's a Classroom assistant and her partner is an electrician so they get a UC top up which covers their full rent (younger children are twins so exempt from the two child rule I believe).

it is cheap compared to private rent but for a council property compared to what council rent used to be I think this is high, my son and his wife both work so can manage the rent but it makes me wonder how people on UC can manage this when there is a rent cap

Your comment will no doubt open up a whole other debate about why 2 people working are taking up social housing so be prepared!

That's not true a 3 bed would be 6 and a half people ie 6 people and a baby. Not 8 kids and one or two adults.

my daughter is a housing officer for the local council and she has said because of these high council rents and UC having a cap on rent so many people in arrears and being threaten with eviction

@Twins3007

I'm not sure if it's the same where you are but here (Scotland) UC covers the full rent amount for social housing even if above the LHA I believe.

I can assure you they are just about getting by and have been in a council property for many years, just because my dil can now work while kids in school does not mean they have any spare money for a mortgage deposit or a rent deposit , they live week to week

Because a developer is in the business to make money!

Councils build houses to provide housing, that will last many changes of tenancy. The cost to build is not the prime concern that the developer has.

Profit, profit, profit.

The council want you to pack in as many kids as you can. The developer wants to make money and doesn’t care how many kids you house in it. This really isn’t a hard one.

What a load of nonsense. There's an entire sub-industry busy helping developers to minimise/dodge their S106 obligations. Near me the developer was subject to a condition to deliver a road junction improvement before the estate was completed which they ignored. They applied to have it set aside nearly two years ago and the council hasn't decided, the estate is completed and all houses are occupied and no doubt the road improvements they agreed to will never get delivered.
It's all about fat bonuses for the bosses of the developers and dividends to shareholders and screw anyone everyone else.

Council houses are revenue neutral, the council has no incentive to either profit or lose money, it's role is to provide a fair quality service. As evidently this council has.

Wish I could get one of those OP 😀 sounds lush.

Councils want to keep their tenants in one place and happy. I would bet even money these houses also have space for a lift to be put in if / when a tenant becomes disabled.

Councils want to keep their tenants in one place and happy. I would bet even money these houses also have space for a lift to be put in if / when a tenant becomes disabled.

I dislike a lot of new builds. No built in storage, often no room to add wardrobes/good storage in bedrooms, 4/5 bed houses with a tiny living room/garden and 5 million en-suites to clean. I'd rather have less en-suites and a built in wardrobe!

Social housing is built for families to live in. Private are to sell and run

@DragonFly98 that's interesting that there is a limit on number of children sharing a room regardless of its size.

Where I lived they had 2 DC in a single room which was too small for standard sized beds after the rewiring was surface mounted - they had to buy shorty bunks!!

They had 5 DC, in tiniest 3 bed you can imagine, once the baby turned 1 they were overcrowded and did eventually get moved.

Honestly it was so small, impossible to have anything other than a very small dining table for 4.