Housing Association

robin_banks

sequence wrote: »

People are going to wake up in about 5 years and realize what absolute sh!te these new breed of "luxury" flats are.

As someone who worked on building these, I'd value most "luxury flats" at around 40K maximum. These kinds of places are going to be the real slums of the future once all the wood filler starts to fall out :cool:

Property prices have dropped, new build flats have experienced the biggest drop.

HA's have bought some of these as it is cheaper than building them, plus there isn't the time lag involved.

Wicked_witch

I don't think I understand why this is a problem. I skimmed your post initially and assumed you were talking about the houses being rented HA places, given to people on council waiting lists, but on re-reading you seem to be saying that they are to be sold. So they will only go to people with jobs who are able to get some sort of mortgage anyway, not ex convicts with drug habits or single mothers with 5 kids (or any of the other council house/HA sterotypes). Is your only objection that their salary isn't as high as yours, so they aren't good enough to live near you? I apologise if I am wrong, but afraid that is how it's coming over.

Aschenputtel

leveller2911 wrote: »

Its actually Government policy.The ratio is something like 2.8/10 affordable housing and quite righly so in my opinion.There are far too many overpriced homes that the vast majority of people under the average wage can't afford. Given the fact that the Tories allowed the selling off of the Council house stock and not allowing the Councils to build with the prceeds has made the problem far worse now.

It was around 4-5 yrs ago in London the 1st £1m ex-council house was sold, many many people have bought over the years and relied on HPI to "climb the greasy ladder".Many of those now live in houses worth vastly more than they bought thier Council houses for and suddenly forget how they started.

We need affordable housing and if you want someone to blame for having Chav,work shy scumbags living locally don't blame the Councils blame the Tories for giving un-married mums Council houses during the 80,s and Labour for continuing the policy.:rolleyes:

Labours grand plan for integration........

What many people do fail to realise is that under "section 106" for all large developments there is a social element, which usually encompasses social housing whether it be shared ownership, council housing etc.
The developer must include a number or percentage of houses to be sold to the local authority or housign association.
At Islington council in London any new development which takes up 5 blocks or more must include a minimum percent stated by the council.

So for those who have bought into new luxury developments whether they be in Islington or elsewhere the likelyhood that you will have a percentage of local housing association neighbours will be high, though if the apartments being sold are shared ownership, it is more than likely that these are being snapped up by young professionals and families wishing to jump on the property ladder.

I agree also that London needs shared ownership properties, the city is highly unaffordable for young people, though it does become a slight joke when shared ownership properties in Westminster have a price tag of half a million for a 1 bedroom flat..

This is why some developers like Candy and Candy who are developing the old Chelsea barracks into luxury apartments have changed their plans to include a hotel as they didn't want to have to alot any of their apartments to affordable housing.

P