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!!

What a ridiculous claim - this is not why we are skint.

A tiny number of net contributors funding huge swathes of non contributors can only end one way.

It has become a lifestyle choice not to pay your own way these days and the system encourages it.

Imagine if everyone bar the genuinely incapable decided to fund themselves. The country would be thriving.

My guess would be because council houses are built to be practical and new builds are build to look good and sell For good money. So different markets.

I say that as someone who has a 2018 built house. I would love built on wardrobes but new builds don’t do them around here anymore I think because it makes the rooms seem bigger.

That said though our house is 3 double bedrooms which I think is unusual. Bedroom 2 and 3 are identical size.

We actually want to move and I’d consider an ex council house because they are just better for space and storage etc.

Council tax can't be used to cross subsidise council housing, there are strict accounting rules

councils don't need to make profit.

And often already hold land they can use.

They can't use council tax payers money to fund council housing though (nor can they use council housing rents to fund general services)

Also -.most " council housing" is actually owned by Housing Associations,

Agreed, I have spoken to plenty of developers who know exactly how to play the game.

Again council tax money cannot be used to subsidise council housing, there are very strict accounting rules on this.

In my experience the social rent level actually does very much cover the costs too. The difference between social rent and private rent is profit for the landlord

Just worth reminding people too that plenty of people in council /HA housing do pay council tax. (And many other taxes

(Not that it's relevant, because the council tax can't be used to fund council housing, but I always feel frustrated by ignorant comments from people who seem to assume people in council houses don't pay tax)

Taxpayers pay billions of pounds annually towards council housing. Whether or not it's council tax is irrelevant.

I feel that subsidising rental costs must feed into the cost of housing overall

The guy who laid my flooring in my last place also did the flooring for a friend who'd just moved into a new social housing flat. Her flat was in a 'luxury' block where 20% or something were social housing. He'd done some of the privately owned flats too, and he commented to me that the social housing flats were more spacious because councils have minimum standards whereas developers will just sell for what they can get.

Councils do see through them, but unfortunately often can't justify the cost of taking the developers to court and making them stick to their contracts.

Many can’t.

“The case for getting rid of the two-child and overall benefit caps has never been stronger, given the obscene extent of child poverty.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/16/the-guardian-view-on-universal-credit-raising-the-level-of-benefits-must-be-the-priority?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

as I said in my last post my son pays £1400 a month for a HA 3 bed, old council owned 3 Beds are are maybe what your talking about "high subsidised rent" as in our area they rent for between £500 and £600 a month. A private rental for a 3 bed in our area ranges from £1400 a month so not much different than a newbuilt HA house.

But then why go for HA? Genuine Q as people always seem to complain about maintenance etc and I always thought the big advantage was a lower price but if it is to pay the same why not go private?

Me and dp have always worked and we lived in a council flat and then house. We were both prepared to live there forever as we had no chance of saving enough for a deposit, but due to us both being made redundant we could. If that hadn't happened, we'd still be there. Both working ft.

Something has gone very wrong in this country if what sounds like a classroom assistant (part time, term time only, low pay) can only have a family with the support of benefits. We need good people doing these badly paid jobs long term, not just people with no other options.

@LaCouleurDeMonCiel I think you are confusing "subsidised" with "choosing not to make a profit". Social housing is required by law to be self financing. You may wish to look up the concept of the housing revenue account.

Security I suppose, people who privately rent do not get a lifetime tenancy , a landlord may want to sell the property or move back in

But who is building the council's houses? The days when they had their own building teams are long gone so somewhere a builder is still able to build to this standard and make a profit.

Because the council aren’t operating for
profit?

The only rental costs being subsidised are those of private tenants in receipt of UC. This absolutely feeds into the cost of housing overall as it's funnelling profit directly into the hands of private landlords.

But the builders can reasonably be expected to make a profit, does anyone work for nothing? The one advantage that the council has may be that they already own the land on which they're having the houses built.

Well yes. But the builders will look to maximise their profit whereas the council will be more focused on their objective of providing housing.

My son and his fiancée live in a new build, it's owned by the council but in a private estate. There are 6 new builds on the estate which belong to the council and they are a bit larger than the others. However this estate is mainly detached properties so I'm not sure it's as obvious.
They get benefits but have the biggest sky package known to man (3 of those bloody sky glass teles), a car on lease that's 2 years old (not a small car either, 7 seats). They do both work, but have children too.
When they were moving in 2 years ago we were selling our family home and bought all the furniture and helped decorate. We gave our other son the same amount of money and he used it for a house deposit. But with secure tenancy they said there was no point doing the same as they wouldn't get a house as nice or on as nice of an estate!