The controversial issue of new houses.....

[lindyloo]

my town council owns acres and acres of fields on the edges of towns. they just do nothing with them, and i think it would be good practice to put in place schemes where people actually get involved in building thier own homes, as i see some councils do. i am not a fan of housing asc. because a) they charge high rents for fairly cheap build houses, all squashed together, and b) the part own/part buy schemes are not very fair to the occupier. therefore i think the decision of building of homes should be with the town councils, and for local people only. i am not against building on green belt lands either, let alone brown belt, but it should be done in low impact areas, along the lines of building a new town, not just packed together tacky housing estates. ( the ones which were recently built in our town are so packed together, with the front doors straight onto narrowwer than average pavements, no grass verges, very little parking, a small back yard about 8x10 foot, a lot of rabbit warren flats, with out any greenery around, and no space for planting shrubs or trees, yet they put doric columns at the sides of the doors!!! give it 10 years, and it will be a slum, and look like one too. and when the council offered them to people, they refused to take them, so they all went ot outsiders. ( and i dont balame the people who turned them down- they were alwful) i think i would like to see something along the lines of the housing projects after the war, whereby new towns were created ; milton keynes etc.

i guess i'm a bit overly optimistic, but i think everyone should have a house that is detatched, or at least soundproofed, with a garden big enough to have a veg patch, and for the kids to play, and its own driveway. i dont see why if your are of a low income, you should have to live like a rabbit in a rabbit hutch. to my thinking overcrowding is a recipe for trouble and arguments later on. if people were involved right from the start, and had a say in what they wanted, they would take pride in thier homes, and responsibility, and that leads to pride and resposibility for thier lives as well- ie getting back to work, or whatever, depending on thier situations.

[lizzylemon]

i guess i'm a bit overly optimistic, but i think everyone should have a house that is detatched, or at least soundproofed, with a garden big enough to have a veg patch, and for the kids to play, and its own driveway. i dont see why if your are of a low income, you should have to live like a rabbit in a rabbit hutch. to my thinking overcrowding is a recipe for trouble and arguments later on. if people were involved right from the start, and had a say in what they wanted, they would take pride in thier homes, and responsibility, and that leads to pride and resposibility for thier lives as well- ie getting back to work, or whatever, depending on thier situations.

No such thing as over optimistic when you're planning for the future. That's the kind of attitude that makes better things happen. High density don't have to mean its horrible or potential slums of the future but I know what you mean.

It's been proven time and again that when local people are involved directly with the planning of their homes, it's normally better quality, more sustainable and looked after by the majority (and 'policed' by them too). I don't believe in the shared equity nonsense, it's doesn't work for lots of different reasons but I'm not sure how we change the current views (which have only been like it for the last 35 ish years) about owning houses. Much stronger structure and positive laws about renting are needed with long term (10, 15, or even 40 years) leases becoming the norm - after all, the house is only yours at the end of a mortgage if you've managed to pay it off, otherwise it still belongs to the bank. I mean most mortgages are 25+ years so why not leases too. Much more peace of mind for the tenant (Landlord too I guess) and it would be more in line with our European Cousins who do this sort of thing all the time. In Germany, when you rent, you're expected to put in your own kitchen etc when you move in (or at least it used to be).

[Hilary B]

High density SHOULDN'T have to mean slums of the future, but it tends to, because the people who can afford the better houses don't want to live in high density places, so they are built cheaply. There is such a thing as slum-type people, and they go for cheap houses. A few of them in a low-cost development will drag down the standards in spite of the other residents.
Land costs quite a bit in 'popular' areas (because there isn't any more being made) so the only way to get affordable homes is to limit the space used for each one, which means little or no garden.
A lot of councils have 'found' building land where they used to have allotments.
Either way, if there are to be more homes, there will be less land for people to grow their own food.

[OverWyreGrower]

A friend of ours has been saving to buy a house with some land for ages now, and the other week, put in an offer on a small house (which needed lots of work doing to it) with land near us.

Originally it was accepted, then earlier this week, the vendor pulled out.

Apparantly, in 2 or 3 years, restrictions on new builds in the area will be lifted, so he can sell his field to a developer for silly money, as it will fit between 6-10 'rabbit hutch' houses on it.

He has decided he will wait out those 2 or 3 years in the hope of raking it in when the developers come knocking...

Friend is back in the same position... not able to afford what they want...

Lots of places with land have disappeared from sale recently, I suspect they are waiting for the developers!

[lizzylemon]

High density SHOULDN'T have to mean slums of the future, but it tends to, because the people who can afford the better houses don't want to live in high density places, so they are built cheaply.

Sorry I find it's a different story in the city nearest to me - the HD building going on locally are actually extremely high end quality with very expensive fittings, the cheapest flat is normally 250 to 275, 000 pounds per flat for a studio flat, not cheap or slummy.

There is such a thing as slum-type people, and they go for cheap houses. A few of them in a low-cost development will drag down the standards in spite of the other residents.

Sorry I don't agree with this statement either.

Land costs quite a bit in 'popular' areas (because there isn't any more being made) so the only way to get affordable homes is to limit the space used for each one, which means little or no garden.
A lot of councils have 'found' building land where they used to have allotments.
Either way, if there are to be more homes, there will be less land for people to grow their own food.

Couldn't have said a truer word but that's why sustainability is so important.

[Alison]

There is such a thing as slum-type people, and they go for cheap houses. A few of them in a low-cost development will drag down the standards in spite of the other residents.

Perhaps a rather unfortunate choice of words as I find the terminology rather offensive but a few dodgy people in any development (low or high value) will drag down standards so the point is hardly relevant anyway.

[lindyloo]

there are always going to some inconsiderate and ignorant nieghbors, whatever bracket you happen to be in ( i try not to judge people) some of my worst nieghbors listened to radio 3 at full pelt in the garden every evening, and talked in honking loud superior voices for half of the wine sozzled night.

the problem becomes much worse if you are crammed in next to nieghbors, with no quiet corner to escape to. thats why i think everyone deserves a decent home.

i personally dont think that it is a persons fault if they are poor, cant get a job, or only a poorly paid one, they got involved with the wrong partner, havent made it etc. yes there are a few scroungers, but in the main, i think it is true to say, we were not all created equally, some people dont get good families or parents, they dont get a good education, they arent whizz kids, they worked hard, but didnt get the luck or the breaks , or the contacts that can make all of the differance. and that doesnt mean they are worthy of less than others, it just means they have a harder life. everyone deserves a decent home- somewhere that is a haven, and pleasant to live in. i am afraid that i think that much of the problem is down to greed, as someone else mentioned.

[OverWyreGrower]

there are always going to some inconsiderate and ignorant nieghbors, whatever bracket you happen to be in ( i try not to judge people) some of my worst nieghbors listened to radio 3 at full pelt in the garden every evening, and talked in honking loud superior voices for half of the wine sozzled night.

Definitely agree.... we live in a lovely, rather affluent area. The people who live in the £2million+ house next door to us are absolutely filthy rich scumbags.

No consideration for anyone, have threatened a neighbour with a shotgun, had numerous run-ins with the police etc.

[zazen999]

Sorry I find it's a different story in the city nearest to me - the HD building going on locally are actually extremely high end quality with very expensive fittings, the cheapest flat is normally 250 to 275, 000 pounds per flat for a studio flat, not cheap or slummy.

I remember when I worked for the CITB and used to visit the builders who built housing round Cambs regularly.

I remember one particular bunch of flats, which had 2 windows [per flat, one at the front and one at the back], which were built with MDF and not real wood, cheap materials and the builder was telling me all about the shoddy spec they were told to work to.....and they were going at the time at £600k for a 2 bedroom flat.

Shocking. Not sure whether they ever sold for that but someone would have lost loads of capital if they had bought at those prices.

[lizzylemon]

Shocking. Not sure whether they ever sold for that but someone would have lost loads of capital if they had bought at those prices.

I'm sure they did - nothing in Cambs stays empty for long. Renting is also of a premium so even if they didn't get sold they'd have been rented out at 12 - 1500 a month so either way a sure fire way to print money.

They weren't up near the Station where they?

I had a cleaning contract for the large very private and expensive housing estate near to the station a few years back and was horrified at the shoddy workmanship and unfinished work in the communal areas. Dread to think what the flats were like inside. Drove past there the other month and the whole area looks awful, muddy dun drab coloured bricks, peeling paint, weeds up through the paths / roads and it's still considered a well to do area.

[vixfinn]

I totally sympathise with you Lizzy. I have been on the housing list here in Bath for 7 years and still no offers of housing. I rent privately at an extortionate rent and due to landlords selling up, me and the children have moved 4 times in the last 3 years. It ruins their schooling and we have absolutely no stability in our lives. To add to this our delightful council have vetoed the decision to build on a field outside Bath because of fears that people on Duchy land may have to mix with tenants of "social" housing.

[lizzylemon]

I totally sympathise with you Lizzy. I have been on the housing list here in Bath for 7 years and still no offers of housing. I rent privately at an extortionate rent and due to landlords selling up, me and the children have moved 4 times in the last 3 years. It ruins their schooling and we have absolutely no stability in our lives. To add to this our delightful council have vetoed the decision to build on a field outside Bath because of fears that people on Duchy land may have to mix with tenants of "social" housing.

Oh godness me, my heart goes out to you it really does. 7 years is beyond words - I don't know how you manage it. You must be very strong to keep it all together. Moving is just awful, especially so many times in such a sort space of time. You must want to tear your hair out (and more I'm sure).

Because I've just lost my job as well as everything else (boring story) the local housing team have said I can now go into private rent with 100% housing benefit, which is a fantastic offer on the surface, but.....


...I'm really worried taking that offer will force me into a benefits lifestyle. The basic rental cost is 500 - 600 for 2 bedroom house in this area, and there's no way that if I managed to get a new part-time job I'd be able to afford to pay the rent by myself and I'm pretty sure the housing benefit has a fairly low threshold before it gets stopped so it looks like I'd have either stay on benefits to live in a private rented house. Or get a full time job and put my child into full time childminding from probably 7.30 in the morning till 6pm which is something I'm not prepared to do either. Probably wouldn't be able afford rent & full time childminding costs either tbh.


No win situation at the moment.

[lindyloo]

i wish both of you luck. i know from friends that once you get in the system , you are stuck in a poverty trap. once in private rented, you are not urgently in need of housing, if you then give up private rented, say to move back home with parents, they can then decline to help find you housing, because you volontarily made yourself homeless, and if you have to get housing benefit, whatever you earn is taken against it at , in our area, 87P out of the pound. so effectively, you might work for 30 hours and only be 10£ a week better off than existance level. which some people might think is fair, but i think comes at a huge cost ie impact on your child, your pride, and a feeling of general hopelessness to ever be able to get out of the trap. and they dont take into account the fact that transport to and from work costs money , so you may be far worse off. i really hope that things change for the better for you both.

[Hilary B]

Perhaps a rather unfortunate choice of words as I find the terminology rather offensive but a few dodgy people in any development (low or high value) will drag down standards so the point is hardly relevant anyway.

Of course they will, but the ones who are worst that way are most likely to be looking for the low cost options. That doesn't mean people in low cost housing are of that frame of mind; the great majority aren't, but those who ARE of that frame of mind DO mostly live where house values are low, to the annoyance of neighbours who can't afford to move away! (and if values are lowish when those folk move in, they will soon be lower still).
I don't know how else to describe the folk who will turn their area into a slum. They DO exist (not so numerous, more conspicuous) and wherever they go, they spoil quality of life for all around.

[lindyloo]

and yet there are loads of locals in my area, ( most of the locals in fact) who think it is the wealthy incomers who are selfish and greedy, making too much noise and generally taking over, and a general pain in the B-hind, who have wrecked the area. i just dont think we should judge people- yes there is the odd bad apple, but i tend to like an american indian saying. it goes along the lines of " don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes'.


i just can't understand the comment that those that are in that frame of mind do mostly live where house values are low... there are plenty of better off, but still ignorant and inconsiderate nieghbors, the only differance is that they have a more arrogant and superior way of being annoying. maybe thats the very qualities that got them ahead in the first place, but it doesnt neccasarily make them pleasant.

most people who look for a cheaper housing option have no choice, through no fault of thier own. and by definition i find social housing to be a derogatory term which should be changed- i dont know if it can be called cheap housing though, as in fact its very pricy for what you would get for your money. i just think it is wrong to judge; there are far more important things at stake- such as a child having a settled home.

to my mind that is more important than whether a nieghbor can see un overcrowded untidy back garden. ( as an example) and that is where the planners and builders are at fault- if you give people a space where they are not crowded on top of one another, they will enjoy living there enough to take care of it. if they lose hope, then they lose incentive.