FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Housing confusion
Housing confusion
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
The Conservatives have an ideological hatred of publicly-owned housing.
Which is a total U-turn from the 1950s and 60s when they used to compete with Labour for who could promise voters to build the most council homes.
Two thoughts seem to underpin their ideology:
a) that people who live in council housing are more likely to vote Labour
b) being saddled with a mortgage makes someone less likely to go on strike at their work.
I thought Gordon Brown missed a trick during the financial crash when the money tap was turned up to compensate for the banks pulling up the drawbridge.
A massive programme of council housing would have preserved the construction sector and eased the national shortage.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Also the connection between lack of social housing and homeless go hand in hand x"
Homelessness is a much more complex issue to unravel than just a shortage of housing. A factor yes, but usually one of many.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Also the connection between lack of social housing and homeless go hand in hand x
Homelessness is a much more complex issue to unravel than just a shortage of housing. A factor yes, but usually one of many.
"
I totally agree x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't need more affordable housing or cuts to stamp duty we need more social housing x"
Affordable housing in the form of accessible to rent or buy, which should include social housing. The UK also needs more housing security for people, in the form of price and residency tenure. When people have effective rights securing their most essential needs, it helps to secure their own and the nation's well-being - better for families, local infrastructure and services etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A lack of social housing, yet at every turn private landlords are hammered. By all means, get rid of the bad landlords but treating them all as pariahs and taxing them right, left and centre does not help the affordable rent sector. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"We don't need more affordable housing or cuts to stamp duty we need more social housing x"
We need more affordable housing as many wish to be home owners.
We need more social housing for families that need a home and cannot or do not want to guy.
We need all types of housing.
The exeption is flats as we have to many where I live,not good for young families.
We need bungalows for the elderly that are suitable for them to live in in old age.
All these things are needed but must be done with the right infrastructure.New roads,leisure facilities etc.
All this must be done without to much erosion in the green belt,sadly there must be some
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't need more affordable housing or cuts to stamp duty we need more social housing x"
Pretty much, 'affordable housing' means nothing when it's pegged to private rents, flood the country with a state house building boom and watch the private rents come tumbling. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
The Conservative Party is the political wing of the City of London.
Look at their CVs.
And then ask yourself why housing is something to be bought and sold, rather than lived in.
A roof over your head. Isn't that a basic staple of a civilised society?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Also the connection between lack of social housing and homeless go hand in hand xNot true that is a myth"
May be a factor. There is employment, education, social help etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There is too much money to be made by Tories in modern Rachmanism for them to allow the building of Local Authority housing stock.
Fact is if we started building Social Housing not only would it force private landlords to cut the rents they charge and improve the quality of their housing stock. But it would also drive down the value of private housing stock because it would remove the artificial shortage in the market that is maintained by the speculative building industry that they use to inflate housing costs. Of course a national social housing building program would also stimulate the jobs market by providing real jobs and force wages up.
All things that Tories are ideologically opposed to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is too much money to be made by Tories in modern Rachmanism for them to allow the building of Local Authority housing stock.
Fact is if we started building Social Housing not only would it force private landlords to cut the rents they charge and improve the quality of their housing stock. But it would also drive down the value of private housing stock because it would remove the artificial shortage in the market that is maintained by the speculative building industry that they use to inflate housing costs. Of course a national social housing building program would also stimulate the jobs market by providing real jobs and force wages up.
All things that Tories are ideologically opposed to."
Did the Tories not put a limit on what private landlords can charge ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Did the Tories not put a limit on what private landlords can charge ? "
No, they did not.
They put a limit on how much housing benefit could be claimed which is not the same. And in fact by restricting housing benefit the Tories helped private landlords clear 'unsuitable' tenants from property that they could earn higher rents from by the gentrification of areas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Most of the country isn't 'gentrified'. Housing benefits are paid to the renters so making those is receipt a less than welcome tenant as it can be very hard for the landlord to get paid. Tax relief on mortgage payments has stopped, meaning many landlords are actually subsiding their tenants and the basis of rental agreements has changed in complete favour to the tenant.
I have seen and heard stories of truly awful flats and landlords but the ones I know are barely keeping their heads above water. Add in to that innumerable hoops -all expensive since compulsory- that have to be gone through.
There's every reason to ensure tenants live in safe houses with satisfactory repairs and facilities but they come at a cost which is often not reflected in rental values. Without private landlords, there would be an awful lot of homeless people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Most of the country isn't 'gentrified'. Housing benefits are paid to the renters so making those is receipt a less than welcome tenant as it can be very hard for the landlord to get paid. Tax relief on mortgage payments has stopped, meaning many landlords are actually subsiding their tenants and the basis of rental agreements has changed in complete favour to the tenant.
I have seen and heard stories of truly awful flats and landlords but the ones I know are barely keeping their heads above water. Add in to that innumerable hoops -all expensive since compulsory- that have to be gone through.
There's every reason to ensure tenants live in safe houses with satisfactory repairs and facilities but they come at a cost which is often not reflected in rental values. Without private landlords, there would be an awful lot of homeless people."
Or a lot more social housing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not happening, though. Planning permission is being sought on large areas of greenbelt around Winchester and Southampton with Social Housing being the developers and council's carrot. In the event, nothing of the sort is built, developers deciding that costs are too high, once PP granted. That is echoed throughout the land. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Not happening, though. Planning permission is being sought on large areas of greenbelt around Winchester and Southampton with Social Housing being the developers and council's carrot. In the event, nothing of the sort is built, developers deciding that costs are too high, once PP granted. That is echoed throughout the land."
This has just been replicated in a n 1800 home development just south of Newark.
Planning permission was granted on the understanding that 30% of the homes were to be affordable housing. The developers have now come back and said that it's not now "financially viable" to build 30% and it's more likely to be 13%. They do this knowing that they have the Council over a barrel.
New legislation is proposed however. All financial viability must now be presented at the initial planning stage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Not happening, though. Planning permission is being sought on large areas of greenbelt around Winchester and Southampton with Social Housing being the developers and council's carrot. In the event, nothing of the sort is built, developers deciding that costs are too high, once PP granted. That is echoed throughout the land.
This has just been replicated in a n 1800 home development just south of Newark.
Planning permission was granted on the understanding that 30% of the homes were to be affordable housing. The developers have now come back and said that it's not now "financially viable" to build 30% and it's more likely to be 13%. They do this knowing that they have the Council over a barrel.
New legislation is proposed however. All financial viability must now be presented at the initial planning stage."
Affordable housing is not social housing x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Not happening, though. Planning permission is being sought on large areas of greenbelt around Winchester and Southampton with Social Housing being the developers and council's carrot. In the event, nothing of the sort is built, developers deciding that costs are too high, once PP granted. That is echoed throughout the land."
This is politics, not changing the laws of physics. If governments locally nationally and regionally wanted to, they could build more social housing. The only issue is the lack of political will. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Not happening, though. Planning permission is being sought on large areas of greenbelt around Winchester and Southampton with Social Housing being the developers and council's carrot. In the event, nothing of the sort is built, developers deciding that costs are too high, once PP granted. That is echoed throughout the land.
This is politics, not changing the laws of physics. If governments locally nationally and regionally wanted to, they could build more social housing. The only issue is the lack of political will. "
One of the main things of right to buy when they sold of housing stock in the 80s it should of been replaced. Have you seen the queues and how long people have to wait on the council house list x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Not happening, though. Planning permission is being sought on large areas of greenbelt around Winchester and Southampton with Social Housing being the developers and council's carrot. In the event, nothing of the sort is built, developers deciding that costs are too high, once PP granted. That is echoed throughout the land.
This is politics, not changing the laws of physics. If governments locally nationally and regionally wanted to, they could build more social housing. The only issue is the lack of political will.
One of the main things of right to buy when they sold of housing stock in the 80s it should of been replaced. Have you seen the queues and how long people have to wait on the council house list x"
Yes, there are 5m people waiting for social housing in the UK.
Right to buy is great for individuals, bad for society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Not happening, though. Planning permission is being sought on large areas of greenbelt around Winchester and Southampton with Social Housing being the developers and council's carrot. In the event, nothing of the sort is built, developers deciding that costs are too high, once PP granted. That is echoed throughout the land.
This is politics, not changing the laws of physics. If governments locally nationally and regionally wanted to, they could build more social housing. The only issue is the lack of political will.
One of the main things of right to buy when they sold of housing stock in the 80s it should of been replaced. Have you seen the queues and how long people have to wait on the council house list x
Yes, there are 5m people waiting for social housing in the UK.
Right to buy is great for individuals, bad for society. "
I'm talking more of the 80s and right to buy your own council house x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Not happening, though. Planning permission is being sought on large areas of greenbelt around Winchester and Southampton with Social Housing being the developers and council's carrot. In the event, nothing of the sort is built, developers deciding that costs are too high, once PP granted. That is echoed throughout the land.
This is politics, not changing the laws of physics. If governments locally nationally and regionally wanted to, they could build more social housing. The only issue is the lack of political will.
One of the main things of right to buy when they sold of housing stock in the 80s it should of been replaced. Have you seen the queues and how long people have to wait on the council house list x
Yes, there are 5m people waiting for social housing in the UK.
Right to buy is great for individuals, bad for society.
I'm talking more of the 80s and right to buy your own council house x"
I know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
As ever, this gets complicated.
Nobody has or should have a "right" to buy or own a property.
Nobody has a "right" to live in a house rather than a flat.
However, people should all be able to find somewhere to live, with a family, within an hour or so of where they work.
That said the crazy property values due to the shortage in the housing stock means that those who cannot buy are loosing "free" unearned money from increasing property values that entrench inequality.
So;
Council housing for those who are on low incomes. Not one bedroom each per child. That's not a "right" either. Clean and in good repair and somewhere in the vicinity of work and education. Given up when the kids move out but to a smaller property in the same area.
This will require a massive building programme, so developers loose property if not developed in a given time-frame and with specified percentage of council property.
Shared ownership for those who can pay a bit more. So some increase in capital realised on sale.
Stamp duty is a bit odd but tends to penalise the less well off party. Ramp up the sales tax a little more as the seller has benefited from an unearned profit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost. "
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. "
They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development. "
Why's that then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?"
Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most of the country isn't 'gentrified'. Housing benefits are paid to the renters so making those is receipt a less than welcome tenant as it can be very hard for the landlord to get paid. Tax relief on mortgage payments has stopped, meaning many landlords are actually subsiding their tenants and the basis of rental agreements has changed in complete favour to the tenant.
I have seen and heard stories of truly awful flats and landlords but the ones I know are barely keeping their heads above water. Add in to that innumerable hoops -all expensive since compulsory- that have to be gone through.
There's every reason to ensure tenants live in safe houses with satisfactory repairs and facilities but they come at a cost which is often not reflected in rental values. Without private landlords, there would be an awful lot of homeless people."
OMG!
Are you really that venal?
Firstly we never judge an industry by its best practices and the most ethical within that industry, we judge it by the worst, or maybe your with Trump when he said that there were good people marching under Swastikas a year ago in Charlotsville?
As for your claim that you know private landlords who are barely keeping their head above water...
Do me a favour and stop deluding yourself. Here is the unvarnished truth. Private landlords drive the cost of getting onto the housing ladder up. The trick is really very simple. You buy a buy to let property, you find a tenant who then pays the mortgage, maintenance and insurance costs on your property. You release the equity on the property which you use to buy another property and repeat. That you know private landlords that are crying about how bad things are while helping to manipulate the housing market and growing the value of their capital stock is pathetic.
Your claim that private landlords are some sort of social heroes saving people from homelessness is bullshit! You may as well say the Israelis are saving many Palestinian lives on a daily basis by not shooting them! Fact is there are 4 linked statistics, the growth of private landlords is inversely linked to the transfer of publicly owned social housing stock from local government to private ownership and the growth of homelessness and cost of private housing (both rented and mortgaged) is directly linked to the shrinkage of social housing stock.
Finally, gentrification is a deliberately slow process, to do it any other way would be to flood the market and in so doing drive down prices and profits. Gentrification is about profit taking. But don't worry about that, you will be able to see those who no longer reach your high social standards forced to move to 'northern wastelands'. Of course it may get a bit ripe when you find you have none left to remove your rubbish, clean your streets or do all those other menial tasks that used to be done by the riffraff that used to live in the former council estates that have now been transformed into starter homes for the nouveau riche. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wow. While there are bits of truth in there, was that tone really necessary ? You’ve strawmaned left right and centre, putting words into their mouth. Let’s keep it civil eh and not try and align someone’s opinion with a rally which contained nazis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs. "
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wow. While there are bits of truth in there, was that tone really necessary ? You’ve strawmaned left right and centre, putting words into their mouth. Let’s keep it civil eh and not try and align someone’s opinion with a rally which contained nazis. "
For 40 years this country has followed a supposedly neo-liberal economic path which in reality has been socialism for the rich and when the bottom line realities of a low and non regulated market become so real they can be no longer ignored there is a great wailing and gnashing of teeth with promises of change. But what do we get as the scandals die down its back to business as usual.
I admit I am angry, what I don't understand is why everyone else is not angry too.
As for the aligning someones apologist post where they effectively say there are some bad landlords but many good ones, with the president of the USA making an apologist speech in the same terms in defence of Nazis I think is fair comment. I can understand how those who are having the simile drawn about them may feel uncomfortable, but there is a simple answer to that, if you don't want unfavourable comparisons to your attitude drawn don't write posts that leave you open to such.
If you are correct about me stawmanning please feel free to deconstruct what I have said and expose my position as being false. Or maybe your fist sentence gives away the reality. I spoke truth but you did not want to hear that. I expect there are many others who would share that position. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Solving homelessness is far far more complex than just building more housing. "
That is the utter bullshit excuse that has been used for the past 30 odd years to ensure that there has been a housing shortage that has inflated profitability in the private rental market. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Solving homelessness is far far more complex than just building more housing.
That is the utter bullshit excuse that has been used for the past 30 odd years to ensure that there has been a housing shortage that has inflated profitability in the private rental market."
It's not bullshit, but I don't think that anyone has claimed that, for example, long term rough sleeping, will be solved *purely* with more housing, but more housing is certainly part of the puzzle. Look at it this way, you can have all the other support services in place, and work with a rough sleeper for a long time, but if at the end of that there is no home, then he will still be rough sleeping. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Solving homelessness is far far more complex than just building more housing.
That is the utter bullshit excuse that has been used for the past 30 odd years to ensure that there has been a housing shortage that has inflated profitability in the private rental market."
It's not, it was my job for a few years. While different authorities will have different issues and large cities will be different from other areas I can assure you that you could build a house for every single person out there and there will still be homelesness. The area I worked in a large number of the people we dealt with had been round the system a few times and had been housed on a few occasions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wow. While there are bits of truth in there, was that tone really necessary ? You’ve strawmaned left right and centre, putting words into their mouth. Let’s keep it civil eh and not try and align someone’s opinion with a rally which contained nazis.
For 40 years this country has followed a supposedly neo-liberal economic path which in reality has been socialism for the rich and when the bottom line realities of a low and non regulated market become so real they can be no longer ignored there is a great wailing and gnashing of teeth with promises of change. But what do we get as the scandals die down its back to business as usual.
I admit I am angry, what I don't understand is why everyone else is not angry too.
As for the aligning someones apologist post where they effectively say there are some bad landlords but many good ones, with the president of the USA making an apologist speech in the same terms in defence of Nazis I think is fair comment. I can understand how those who are having the simile drawn about them may feel uncomfortable, but there is a simple answer to that, if you don't want unfavourable comparisons to your attitude drawn don't write posts that leave you open to such.
If you are correct about me stawmanning please feel free to deconstruct what I have said and expose my position as being false. Or maybe your fist sentence gives away the reality. I spoke truth but you did not want to hear that. I expect there are many others who would share that position."
They said they had heard of bad landlords but knew ones which were struggling. They didn’t make a claim the good outweighed the bad. Just presented their belief there is a range. Generally, if you deal in absolutes you will end up simplifying issues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Wow. While there are bits of truth in there, was that tone really necessary ? You’ve strawmaned left right and centre, putting words into their mouth. Let’s keep it civil eh and not try and align someone’s opinion with a rally which contained nazis.
For 40 years this country has followed a supposedly neo-liberal economic path which in reality has been socialism for the rich and when the bottom line realities of a low and non regulated market become so real they can be no longer ignored there is a great wailing and gnashing of teeth with promises of change. But what do we get as the scandals die down its back to business as usual.
I admit I am angry, what I don't understand is why everyone else is not angry too.
As for the aligning someones apologist post where they effectively say there are some bad landlords but many good ones, with the president of the USA making an apologist speech in the same terms in defence of Nazis I think is fair comment. I can understand how those who are having the simile drawn about them may feel uncomfortable, but there is a simple answer to that, if you don't want unfavourable comparisons to your attitude drawn don't write posts that leave you open to such.
If you are correct about me stawmanning please feel free to deconstruct what I have said and expose my position as being false. Or maybe your fist sentence gives away the reality. I spoke truth but you did not want to hear that. I expect there are many others who would share that position.
They said they had heard of bad landlords but knew ones which were struggling. They didn’t make a claim the good outweighed the bad. Just presented their belief there is a range. Generally, if you deal in absolutes you will end up simplifying issues. "
fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? "
planning policy is different for every area so the OPs account is a little flawed.
However it contains a kernel of important truth. Since the introduction of town and country planning in 1947 land in the UK is valued on the basis of what the law will let you do with it. So if land is allocated for social housing that's what it's worth... You might not want to sell at that price but that's why there are compulsory purchase orders. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? planning policy is different for every area so the OPs account is a little flawed.
However it contains a kernel of important truth. Since the introduction of town and country planning in 1947 land in the UK is valued on the basis of what the law will let you do with it. So if land is allocated for social housing that's what it's worth... You might not want to sell at that price but that's why there are compulsory purchase orders."
As far as I'm aware (not my specialty so please correct me if I'm wrong) areas are designated for housing, not specifically social housing, or private housing. There is also the ability to get a change of purpose for land isn't there? I doubt much social housing is built on compulsory purchase order. Isn't that usually for infrastructure projects such as HS2 that can't really be built anywhere else? (Again, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Registered social landlords can also purchase any property that is on the open market, and they do quite properties that way too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? "
Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info. "
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They said they had heard of bad landlords but knew ones which were struggling. They didn’t make a claim the good outweighed the bad. Just presented their belief there is a range. Generally, if you deal in absolutes you will end up simplifying issues. "
Really?
Oversimplification?
Try this on for size. And lets see if your position stands up to a simple test?
Only a very small minority of people of people are violent and kill. No matter how much legislation there is to regulate violence there will always be killers. Therefore lets not bother doing anything about violence and killers because the issue is too complex.
Now the above may be a straw-man argument, but it does expose the true hypocrisy of any argument that claims that because there will always be those that slip through a net there should be no net. Which is in essence the argument used to defend refusing to build the social housing this country requires.
Anyone care to tell me I am wrong?
We legislate and regulate because of the worst not the best or the broad spectrum of those who are involved in anything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? "
Not directly, In simplified terms if they want to obtain planning permission they must agree to supply a 30 to 40% element of the development in the form of social/affordable housing. If they do not do this via 106s agreement then planning permission will not be given regardless of the merit of their site. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? Not directly, In simplified terms if they want to obtain planning permission they must agree to supply a 30 to 40% element of the development in the form of social/affordable housing. If they do not do this via 106s agreement then planning permission will not be given regardless of the merit of their site. "
Right, and I've been talking about a RSL, buying land, and developing it all for themselves to use as social housing. You (or another poster) said they can't do this, that it's against the rules. But I can't find any rules that says they can't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They said they had heard of bad landlords but knew ones which were struggling. They didn’t make a claim the good outweighed the bad. Just presented their belief there is a range. Generally, if you deal in absolutes you will end up simplifying issues.
Really?
Oversimplification?
Try this on for size. And lets see if your position stands up to a simple test?
Only a very small minority of people of people are violent and kill. No matter how much legislation there is to regulate violence there will always be killers. Therefore lets not bother doing anything about violence and killers because the issue is too complex.
Now the above may be a straw-man argument, but it does expose the true hypocrisy of any argument that claims that because there will always be those that slip through a net there should be no net. Which is in essence the argument used to defend refusing to build the social housing this country requires.
Anyone care to tell me I am wrong?
We legislate and regulate because of the worst not the best or the broad spectrum of those who are involved in anything. "
I have at no point said don’t legislate. I will go back and reread but don’t recall the other poster saying this. But I don’t see how your position on landlord is linked to not building social housing. Maybe I’ve missed an argument, but the original reason for butting in was not because of any position I have here, but simply because you were playing the man. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? Not directly, In simplified terms if they want to obtain planning permission they must agree to supply a 30 to 40% element of the development in the form of social/affordable housing. If they do not do this via 106s agreement then planning permission will not be given regardless of the merit of their site.
Right, and I've been talking about a RSL, buying land, and developing it all for themselves to use as social housing. You (or another poster) said they can't do this, that it's against the rules. But I can't find any rules that says they can't."
It was not I that said that.We therefore may have got our wires crossed? However why would someone sell their land for social housing when they can get a better prices for it as open market housing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? Not directly, In simplified terms if they want to obtain planning permission they must agree to supply a 30 to 40% element of the development in the form of social/affordable housing. If they do not do this via 106s agreement then planning permission will not be given regardless of the merit of their site.
Right, and I've been talking about a RSL, buying land, and developing it all for themselves to use as social housing. You (or another poster) said they can't do this, that it's against the rules. But I can't find any rules that says they can't.
It was not I that said that.We therefore may have got our wires crossed? However why would someone sell their land for social housing when they can get a better prices for it as open market housing? "
What if the RSL pays the same as the private developer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? Not directly, In simplified terms if they want to obtain planning permission they must agree to supply a 30 to 40% element of the development in the form of social/affordable housing. If they do not do this via 106s agreement then planning permission will not be given regardless of the merit of their site.
Right, and I've been talking about a RSL, buying land, and developing it all for themselves to use as social housing. You (or another poster) said they can't do this, that it's against the rules. But I can't find any rules that says they can't.
It was not I that said that.We therefore may have got our wires crossed? However why would someone sell their land for social housing when they can get a better prices for it as open market housing?
What if the RSL pays the same as the private developer? "
They have no need to because as part of the legal agreement when the planning permission is granted is that you must sell the social element of that development to a registered housing association it is a compulsory requirement.Therefore they can dictate to a point what they pay for said land as you cannot start building the open market element of the development until an legal agreement is in place with a registered housing association. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? Not directly, In simplified terms if they want to obtain planning permission they must agree to supply a 30 to 40% element of the development in the form of social/affordable housing. If they do not do this via 106s agreement then planning permission will not be given regardless of the merit of their site.
Right, and I've been talking about a RSL, buying land, and developing it all for themselves to use as social housing. You (or another poster) said they can't do this, that it's against the rules. But I can't find any rules that says they can't.
It was not I that said that.We therefore may have got our wires crossed? However why would someone sell their land for social housing when they can get a better prices for it as open market housing?
What if the RSL pays the same as the private developer? They have no need to because as part of the legal agreement when the planning permission is granted is that you must sell the social element of that development to a registered housing association it is a compulsory requirement.Therefore they can dictate to a point what they pay for said land as you cannot start building the open market element of the development until an legal agreement is in place with a registered housing association. "
 But what if the developer sells the social housing to a different RSL? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? Not directly, In simplified terms if they want to obtain planning permission they must agree to supply a 30 to 40% element of the development in the form of social/affordable housing. If they do not do this via 106s agreement then planning permission will not be given regardless of the merit of their site.
Right, and I've been talking about a RSL, buying land, and developing it all for themselves to use as social housing. You (or another poster) said they can't do this, that it's against the rules. But I can't find any rules that says they can't.
It was not I that said that.We therefore may have got our wires crossed? However why would someone sell their land for social housing when they can get a better prices for it as open market housing?
What if the RSL pays the same as the private developer? They have no need to because as part of the legal agreement when the planning permission is granted is that you must sell the social element of that development to a registered housing association it is a compulsory requirement.Therefore they can dictate to a point what they pay for said land as you cannot start building the open market element of the development until an legal agreement is in place with a registered housing association.
But what if the developer sells the social housing to a different RSL? "
They can but the price will be much the same as there are very few RHA compared to the amount of sites that are being developed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Most of the country isn't 'gentrified'. Housing benefits are paid to the renters so making those is receipt a less than welcome tenant as it can be very hard for the landlord to get paid. Tax relief on mortgage payments has stopped, meaning many landlords are actually subsiding their tenants and the basis of rental agreements has changed in complete favour to the tenant.
I have seen and heard stories of truly awful flats and landlords but the ones I know are barely keeping their heads above water. Add in to that innumerable hoops -all expensive since compulsory- that have to be gone through.
There's every reason to ensure tenants live in safe houses with satisfactory repairs and facilities but they come at a cost which is often not reflected in rental values. Without private landlords, there would be an awful lot of homeless people.
OMG!
Are you really that venal?
Firstly we never judge an industry by its best practices and the most ethical within that industry, we judge it by the worst, or maybe your with Trump when he said that there were good people marching under Swastikas a year ago in Charlotsville?
As for your claim that you know private landlords who are barely keeping their head above water...
Do me a favour and stop deluding yourself. Here is the unvarnished truth. Private landlords drive the cost of getting onto the housing ladder up. The trick is really very simple. You buy a buy to let property, you find a tenant who then pays the mortgage, maintenance and insurance costs on your property. You release the equity on the property which you use to buy another property and repeat. That you know private landlords that are crying about how bad things are while helping to manipulate the housing market and growing the value of their capital stock is pathetic.
Your claim that private landlords are some sort of social heroes saving people from homelessness is bullshit! You may as well say the Israelis are saving many Palestinian lives on a daily basis by not shooting them! Fact is there are 4 linked statistics, the growth of private landlords is inversely linked to the transfer of publicly owned social housing stock from local government to private ownership and the growth of homelessness and cost of private housing (both rented and mortgaged) is directly linked to the shrinkage of social housing stock.
Finally, gentrification is a deliberately slow process, to do it any other way would be to flood the market and in so doing drive down prices and profits. Gentrification is about profit taking. But don't worry about that, you will be able to see those who no longer reach your high social standards forced to move to 'northern wastelands'. Of course it may get a bit ripe when you find you have none left to remove your rubbish, clean your streets or do all those other menial tasks that used to be done by the riffraff that used to live in the former council estates that have now been transformed into starter homes for the nouveau riche."
I've never read such an uneducated, ridiculous piece of tripe. It seeps of shoulders with boulders on and a sense of entitlement that is way beyond normal.
The real world, not that in your vision of landlords ripped from a Daily Mashup, is very different and exactly as I said for a great number.
Beyond that, I won't dignify your reply any more, other than to say "Take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? Not directly, In simplified terms if they want to obtain planning permission they must agree to supply a 30 to 40% element of the development in the form of social/affordable housing. If they do not do this via 106s agreement then planning permission will not be given regardless of the merit of their site.
Right, and I've been talking about a RSL, buying land, and developing it all for themselves to use as social housing. You (or another poster) said they can't do this, that it's against the rules. But I can't find any rules that says they can't.
It was not I that said that.We therefore may have got our wires crossed? However why would someone sell their land for social housing when they can get a better prices for it as open market housing?
What if the RSL pays the same as the private developer? They have no need to because as part of the legal agreement when the planning permission is granted is that you must sell the social element of that development to a registered housing association it is a compulsory requirement.Therefore they can dictate to a point what they pay for said land as you cannot start building the open market element of the development until an legal agreement is in place with a registered housing association.
But what if the developer sells the social housing to a different RSL? They can but the price will be much the same as there are very few RHA compared to the amount of sites that are being developed. "
There are quite a few RSLs, and they can absorb enormous amounts of housing stock.
If an RSL wants to develop property, there is nothing to stop them, no rules against it, and they can't force the landowner to sell cheap. You can keep arguing as much as you want, but they are the facts, and they don't change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *osweet69Couple
over a year ago
portsmouth |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? Not directly, In simplified terms if they want to obtain planning permission they must agree to supply a 30 to 40% element of the development in the form of social/affordable housing. If they do not do this via 106s agreement then planning permission will not be given regardless of the merit of their site.
Right, and I've been talking about a RSL, buying land, and developing it all for themselves to use as social housing. You (or another poster) said they can't do this, that it's against the rules. But I can't find any rules that says they can't.
It was not I that said that.We therefore may have got our wires crossed? However why would someone sell their land for social housing when they can get a better prices for it as open market housing?
What if the RSL pays the same as the private developer? They have no need to because as part of the legal agreement when the planning permission is granted is that you must sell the social element of that development to a registered housing association it is a compulsory requirement.Therefore they can dictate to a point what they pay for said land as you cannot start building the open market element of the development until an legal agreement is in place with a registered housing association.
But what if the developer sells the social housing to a different RSL? They can but the price will be much the same as there are very few RHA compared to the amount of sites that are being developed.
There are quite a few RSLs, and they can absorb enormous amounts of housing stock.
If an RSL wants to develop property, there is nothing to stop them, no rules against it, and they can't force the landowner to sell cheap. You can keep arguing as much as you want, but they are the facts, and they don't change."
You have obviously been involve in a lot more land deals then myself so i will bow down to your superior knowledge on the subject and say no more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
afordable housing is just one big scam!
It's all about businesses making money not people.
Do you really think that the likes of developers care about who can afford the houses they build?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"afordable housing is just one big scam!
It's all about businesses making money not people.
Do you really think that the likes of developers care about who can afford the houses they build?
"
You do see it pretty regularly. Planning hoes through with a certain number if "affordable" homes but come completion most have evaporated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"afordable housing is just one big scam!
It's all about businesses making money not people.
Do you really think that the likes of developers care about who can afford the houses they build?
You do see it pretty regularly. Planning hoes through with a certain number if "affordable" homes but come completion most have evaporated."
Yup just a big scam to get the planing permission and then they start cutting back on the so called affordable housing that really does not exist.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"How can a £450,000 house be affordable most affordable housing is out of the normal persons wages. Social housing for nurses, young doctors etc"
I think you are getting confused between affordable housing, and social housing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"How can a £450,000 house be affordable most affordable housing is out of the normal persons wages. Social housing for nurses, young doctors etc
I think you are getting confused between affordable housing, and social housing."
No. Have you checked the prices in London and social housing was just that for nurses, doctors, manufacturing factory workers on low income and affordable rent from social housing x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
A council house is a form of public or social housing built by local municipalities in the United Kingdom and Ireland. A council estate is a building complex containing a great many council houses and other amenities like schools and shops. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've never read such an uneducated, ridiculous piece of tripe. It seeps of shoulders with boulders on and a sense of entitlement that is way beyond normal.
The real world, not that in your vision of landlords ripped from a Daily Mashup, is very different and exactly as I said for a great number.
Beyond that, I won't dignify your reply any more, other than to say "Take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard.""
An average of 200 a week no fault evictions, do I need to say more? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Conservative Party is the political wing of the City of London.
Look at their CVs.
And then ask yourself why housing is something to be bought and sold, rather than lived in.
A roof over your head. Isn't that a basic staple of a civilised society?
"
So true. Social housing virtually does not exist for certain parts of society -single males for example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"How can a £450,000 house be affordable most affordable housing is out of the normal persons wages. Social housing for nurses, young doctors etc
I think you are getting confused between affordable housing, and social housing.
No. Have you checked the prices in London and social housing was just that for nurses, doctors, manufacturing factory workers on low income and affordable rent from social housing x"
The government's National Planning Policy Framework defines affordable housing as "social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've never read such an uneducated, ridiculous piece of tripe. It seeps of shoulders with boulders on and a sense of entitlement that is way beyond normal.
The real world, not that in your vision of landlords ripped from a Daily Mashup, is very different and exactly as I said for a great number.
Beyond that, I won't dignify your reply any more, other than to say "Take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard."
An average of 200 a week no fault evictions, do I need to say more?"
No, you don't need to say morsels, because there is no such thing as 'no fault evictions' other than selling, major repairs, reclaiming to live in or changing function, as is only right. A tenant cannot be evicted without proper cause. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, you don't need to say morsels, because there is no such thing as 'no fault evictions' other than selling, major repairs, reclaiming to live in or changing function, as is only right. A tenant cannot be evicted without proper cause. "
So there are no such things as 'no fault' evictions other than the 3 you mention and of course using the courts to remove sitting tenants when a contract runs out and the landlord refuses to renew it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Tenants rights are first and foremost. Those are the only landlord- based ways to present eviction, the rest are tenants' faults eg non payment of rents after 3 months...then can't evict for another 3 months, anti social behaviour etc. Hence the nightmares when HB tenants don't pay their rent.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" Tenants rights are first and foremost. Those are the only landlord- based ways to present eviction, the rest are tenants' faults eg non payment of rents after 3 months...then can't evict for another 3 months, anti social behaviour etc. Hence the nightmares when HB tenants don't pay their rent.
"
So those renters that are scared to report a repair or a fault or those that are living in squalid conditions can they move out or fear being homeless. The land Lords have the upper hand and tenants are scared to use their rights fact x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
28% of Conservative MPs are landlords
25% of LibDem
11% of Labour
10% of DUP
9% of SNP
2017
It's interesting to consider which of them are looking for greater protection for tenants and more affordable housing.
If housing isn't affordable, then it pushes people to spend more of their income just on basic shelter, meaning they have less for other costs, which are also rising, such as energy and transport.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? "
a local plan can say that only affordable or social housing will be permitted in an area if there is good reason. It's hard to get those sorts of policies through but not impossible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Tenants rights are first and foremost. Those are the only landlord- based ways to present eviction, the rest are tenants' faults eg non payment of rents after 3 months...then can't evict for another 3 months, anti social behaviour etc. Hence the nightmares when HB tenants don't pay their rent.
So those renters that are scared to report a repair or a fault or those that are living in squalid conditions can they move out or fear being homeless. The land Lords have the upper hand and tenants are scared to use their rights fact x"
The renters can't be evicted unless there is work to be done that would mean the house was uninhabitable during that time.
If the renters have an issue, the council will serve repairs notices, which is enforceable by law |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? a local plan can say that only affordable or social housing will be permitted in an area if there is good reason. It's hard to get those sorts of policies through but not impossible."
Does it dictate the price that the land must be sold at? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
How many properties lie empty or are used seasonally in the UK?
Until everybody has one home, nobody should be able to to have two.
This is where language is important: they are "homes" and not "properties". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone tell me who would pay for these Social dwellings?
To build them or live in them? Who would first supply the land and then fund the build cost.
Registered social landlords can buy the the land and fund the costs mortgaging their existing housing stock. They can only do this if the person who own's the land sells them the land at a forced discounted rate as well as funding the building of the social housing element of the development.
Why's that then?Because them's the rules. Every development over 10 units must supply a 30% to 40% social/affordable housing element.That social/affordable housing is divided normally by 70% social 30% affordable.This social/affordable element must be sold to a social housing association.As there are not that many social housing association in a given area they can dictate the price they are going to paid for that land and said houses. All this and more is paid for by the land owner because the price he/she is paid by the developers for their land is reduce by the amount that it cost to supply the social/affordable housing element along with the infrastructure costs.
Thems the rules that if a REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD buys land and develops it themselves the person selling the land at a "forced discounted rate"?
Well I must say this is news to me. Please can you direct me to the act of Parliament or statutory instrument that lays down these rules so that I can do my own research? Just go to your Local planning Authority web site and look up the their local plan policy regarding the delivery of social/affordable housing.Their requirement will be set out there.The 2012 NPPF is also a good source of info.
And that will say thay any landowner is forced to sell their land to a registered social landlord at a forced discounted rate? a local plan can say that only affordable or social housing will be permitted in an area if there is good reason. It's hard to get those sorts of policies through but not impossible.
Does it dictate the price that the land must be sold at?"
No but as I said earlier, land values follow planning permissions - if you can't get planning permission for market value housing then the land is worth less than if you can. In this case what often happens is landowners refuse to sell, at which point the issue of CPOs comes into play. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
