Housing is an example of how Scotland makes better use of its powers than Westminster

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

I ask again where do you get your figures and is it social or affordable.

you might want to tell me what the difference is?

Look up the ONS figure thy have a section which says how many new builds were subsidised housing. The london figure is higher as the London plan calls for 50% subsidised housing

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Affordable housing is social housing. Its a form of subsidised housing. Just like HA homes are social (in fact a lot of HA homes are ex-counil homes transfered to them)

The london plan is for 50% of all new builds to be social/'affordable' and in practice they get close to this eg 49% of all the homes built in my borough last year were social/'affordable'

No it's not affordable housing includes shared ownership and other schemes I believe affordable homes in London means 80% of market value hardly affordable to the majority of people.

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

you might want to tell me what the difference is?

Look up the ONS figure thy have a section which says how many new builds were subsidised housing. The london figure is higher as the London plan calls for 50% subsidised housing

Again your mistaking subsidised with social housing.

CLAPTON

affordable housing used ( a couple of years ago) to mean
-council or HA build for renting
-in London it required that the rent must be no more than 1/3 of £18,000

so basically impossible to build in London at that price without massive subsidy (i.e. achieved by forcing poor FTBs of new property to pay for this 'affordable housing')

cells

r wrote: »

Again your mistaking subsidised with social housing.

Social housing is subsidised

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Social housing is subsidised

Yes but all subsidised house in not social housing.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

affordable housing used ( a couple of years ago) to mean
-council or HA build for renting
-in London it required that the rent must be no more than 1/3 of £18,000

so basically impossible to build in London at that price without massive subsidy (i.e. achieved by forcing poor FTBs of new property to pay for this 'affordable housing')

Where did you get that figure affordable now means 80% of market rent. I agree that the levy on new developments is not the best way to fund social housing.

princeofpounds

If councils want more homes they don't need to build them themselves just make the land available and grant planning.

Bears repeating again.

ukcarper

princeofpounds wrote: »

Bears repeating again.

They'd rather sell the land and pocket the difference not saying that's wrong because most councils budgets are very stretch and they are cutting services.