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!!

The council has tighter regulations to abide by

I'm not convinced of this, from what I've seen the developers often wriggle out of these potential payments.

I think that the developers are well versed in knowing how to word these things - unfortunately council's often don't see through them.
.

Exactly. The 'new' build estate where I live has enough housing for a few thousand people. A school was built by the developers, which had to be extended to add several classrooms within about 10 years because they'd built the smallest size they could get away with. The catchment area shrunk as the estate grew, but the new houses were marketed as being within catchment at the time. Playparks in the privately bought areas were promised, years after the development was completed they finally emerged after a campaign by residents. And the most controversial thing, shops, which have never been built despite the first houses in the estate being built nearly 20 years ago.

The social housing in the estate (a fraction of the overall amount of housing) got a playpark right away. The flats have individual gardens, and there are bungalows. None of these types of properties are available to private buyers because it wouldn't be as profitable for the builders.

But it remains a very nice area to live, and there are great amenities nearby.

As written by a PP: Because one is for profit and one isn't.

I always wonder how much faux-naïveté is going on when social housing tenants claim that they pay rent « like everybody else » : they actually pay a highly subsided rent and the same property would cost way more without the council’s subsidy (ie taxpayers money).

I work in this field

It's because social housing is subject to minimum space standards amongst other things and therefore the houses have to be built with certain space requirements including bedroom size

Private housing isn't subject to these requirements - there is no minimum space standards and therefore can be built as small as they can get away with

In the U.K. houses tend to be marketed (and valued) based on number of bedrooms - whereas in the USA for example tends to be more based on square footage. So there is further incentive to squeeze more bedrooms into the same footprint

I rented a ‘bellway’ new build for a while last year - I was genuinely appalled by the lack of care with the finishes, poor quality of the build and the minimum (to the mm) size of the rooms.

My cousin is an architect who’s done some work on new council houses recently and he was telling me he was impressed by how high spec the requirements were in terms of soundproofing + storage etc

new build developers are in it for the short term profit.

councils are trying to maximise medium to long term value out of a property.

———-

in terms of ‘community investment’ - it’s a box ticking exercise from developers. The council, again, have to think bigger picture because ultimately they’re funding schools etc.

Spend a hot summers day baking in the echoing heat of new-build development - while those plastic wrapped baby trees wilt uselessly. It becomes apparent very quickly to me they weren’t built for human happiness.

Because private buyers usually buy atleast a bedroom bigger than they need. Ours started out as a 5/6bedroom. It's now technically a 4 as the 6th bedroom has been added to ours as a walk in wardrobe and the 5th is the gym giving us 4 good sized doubles. Most of the new builds near us have the smallest bedroom next to master for this reason.

Also councils won't have bought that land at market value let's be realistic here. That's why councils get house builders to build their houses for them.

The building requirements for social housing are really strict - they even govern minimum kitchen cupboard storage, worktop space, storage within the house generally etc

We are in this type of social housing.
Our house is massive for being a 3 bed, the kitchen diner, fits a massive table and a sofa too, we have plenty of storage etc. only build a couple of years ago.
Our housing officer said that where they can they give these houses to families with 4 kids or with several adults living in them. We only have 3 kids but got lucky I guess! There are only 3 others like ours on the estate we are on and they all have 4 kids or our neighbours is 2 parents and their 2 grown children with additional needs who will likely never move out.
Downside is our rent is more expensive. UC does cover it, but if we get to a point where we earn enough to not need UC it will be a stinger.

I think on one side the regulations are tighter and the other is the council aren't profit driven, it's in their best interest to have good quality housing.

CIL or S106 payments from developers will pay for a lot of infrastructure. There are a lot of regulations governing mix, density and property sizes (as well as other things) in public and private sector. Location is also a consideration - urban / rural / greenfield / brownfield etc.

I wish that was true. My rent went up when I moved from private to HA. My council tax also went up.

I pay full rent on my HA home....not my fault it's less than it costs to rent privately. Oh and people in private rent in receipt of UC also get their rent subsided by the taxpayer, but you know that and just needed an excuse to bash those in social housing.

The council know their houses are required for all sorts of different family set ups. Like a PP said above 2x bunk beds per room with homes with children. Adults requiring care or requiring special mobility/ care related aids which need plenty of room - much cheaper than having to build an extension on.

Developers build for profit. Tiny shoe boxes crammed together with 1cm gaps between neighbours walls so they are "detached". Developers build as many as they can possibly fit, cry poverty when it comes to putting in the infrastructure and paying the community levy paying lawyers huge sums of money to wriggle out of having to pay anything that harms the profit margin and then move on to the next postage stamp size of land and repeat.

I would support a government willing to bring in a law which forces all developers to have to build the infrastructure for their proposed developments FIRST, then pay the community levy and THEN and ONLY THEN are they allowed to build.

Yes Brilliant........................if you have kids. If you dont its a poky one bedroom flat that becomes a sauna every summer

Sorry if it read like a bash - not at all. I’m annoyed at people pretending paying full subsidised rent is the same as paying full non-subsidised rent. Both are paying the full amount, just one of the amount is lower than the market amount.

Except most developers dodge them.
Also the standards for building are only complied with as far as developers wish. I listened to a record of our local authority planning committee in which the officer advising the councillors said that although the design of a new estate wasn't up to the standards the authority set, they'd have to accept it and at least the developer was "one of the better ones".
Developers basically do exactly whatever the fuck they want, regardless of any "rules" they are supposed to follow.

For a similar property/similar location? How annoying? I suppose you had to move.

I bought an ex council house

Big porch with cupboards for storage
Under stairs storage
Downstairs toilet
Kitchen, dining room, living room
Big hallway with an airing cupboard and an extra cupboard with rails/shelves
3 big bedrooms and main bathroom
Huge loft

Now in a new build 2 bed apartment
Got 2 bathrooms but absolutely no storage for a Hoover or ironing board
Luckily I live alone so I've turned the spare room into a messy but functional gym/wardrobe/storage

Floor plan of one nearby
They're not pretty but they're so functional and solid

My son and his partner are in one of these massive new build council houses. Their home is gorgeous and the little development is lovely too. They get full rent paid by UC (3 children, she works part time, term time, minimum wage bringing home about £600 a month, my son is on about 30k) then they get Scottish child payment and child benefit too. They really are better off than many who work!!
Their house has a drive way, 3 double bedrooms all with built in wardrobes, a massive airing cupboard and upstairs cupboard, downstairs loo, separate bath and shower, massive kitchen diner which they have a sofa in too and a large lounge, also with a massive garden and drive way. We were looking at a new build not long ago and we wouldn't have got any of that!

This is why the country is skint. Someone funding that themselves would need a salary of around 100k. It’s just not sustainable to keep subsidising so many people.

@Charlie2121
I agree, they have a better life than my daughter who's a single mum to one kid and works all the hours she can - it's insane!

In my village it's the opposite. Huge new build estate, a certain number of social housing houses as part of that. Watched them being built, they were built from inferior materials, different doors and windows etc and all the social housing is directly on the busy main road, or built where all the water used to pool when it was fields ie the worst positions in the development. Mind you all the houses private or not are awful, tiny gardens even in big houses, very close together, hardly any greenery, horrible.

Something has gone wrong in this country if a family can choose to have 3 children and can earn that much yet get all their rent paid by the state.

@ISeriouslyDoubtIt

I know, curiosity got the better of me so I just used one of the benefit calculators, based on that they would get £900+ UC a month, Scottish child payment for all 3 children and child benefit, plus DS making over £2000 a month and his partner making £650 or so.
Their youngest children are twins so I think that impacts the amount they get but it's ridiculous!