Donate SIGN UP

Social Housing?

Avatar Image
R1Geezer | 12:15 Fri 21st Jan 2011 | News
17 Answers
How did the builders of this get away without allocating some apartments for social housing?
http://news.sky.com/s...ve_Flats_Reach_%3F1bn
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 17 of 17rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
because they allocated the affordable housing requirement for the development in another block of flats down the road.
Why do they have to allocate any in the first place.

This is just a tax on new home owners, its them that foot the bill.
Question Author
workshy scum have to live somewhere YMB!
actually a lot of it is also shared owner housing/apartments for key workers such as nurses, police, teachers etc. because of the high cost of housing it was necessary to introduce an element of housing within developments that people or councils could afford. grants and funding come via the housing corporation.

its a shame you don't know more about it really, otherwise i would see somemerit in your argument.
nb, by councils i also include rsl's and housing asociations.
Yes but do the workshy scum have to live in multi million pound luxury flats?

Can't they just sleep on their desks at the banks?
Question Author
That reminds me jake, just got my bonus, off down the pub soon!
Depends on where you live, London etc, yes its alos to help essential workers. However in most parts is as R1 says. I know, I have seen it with my own eyes.

And either way, it is still a tax on someone, often on the bottom rung, buying a house. It is not a fair tax either.
would you prefer we put them up in b&b's or paid them to live in the house owned by their brother/sister whatever, who has registered as a social landlord ?
I have watched the old Bowater House be demolished,and these properties go up as I live about 500 yards from them(no I am not a millionaire,I live in a verty small,very old rent controlled flat).
I feel sorry for people living in these apartments,they will be in a sterile world,afraid to go out,and never knowing their neighbours.
R!Geezer,given that the land costs around here are over £5,000,000 per acre social housing doesn't get a look in.
If my flat were let on the open market (tiny as it is) it would probably get about £2,000 a week,and that's for one bedroom!
Well Geezer in that case you could treat yourself to some new golf clubs.

Say Royal Birkdale, Wentworth and St.Andrews

:c)
Ankou
Can you tell me where this affordable block of flats "down the road"is?as live in the area I would like to apply for one.
regency street, off vauxhall bridge road.

ok down the road was 'developer speak' for out of view........
Sadly your Social Housing is a borough (City of Westminster) that looks favourably on such building,given that is has a very mixed housing stock already,and land values(suprisingly) are not as high as where I live.
My council (Kensington & Chelsea) seem only to be interested in encouraging the higher end of the housing market,and as such (over the years) has a very narrow(on the whole) and expensive housing stock.
Quite how anyone trying to get a foot on the property ladder finds anywhere in London amazes me.
In 1970 when I moved in here(to rent) I could have bought this flat for £8,000,which was out of my range,but not as far out as for first time buyers now!
one hyde place is in westminster councils remit.

but i take your point on affordability, hence my posts above.
So it is Ankou!
But yes you get my point.
Ankou

However you cutr it, this is an unfair tax on housebuyers.

OK, in this case I am sure they dont care, however others scrape together every penny, why should they subsidize others ?

1 to 17 of 17rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Social Housing?

Answer Question >>