Forcing developers to include social housing in luxury developments simply doesn't work. Forcing developers to use luxury developments to subsidise social housing is a perfectly good idea, it's sticking them in the same development that causes the issues. I bought a new build apartment, off plan, in a large new development in London. There had been a lot of issues since the new planning laws came in and there was a lot of resistance to buying premium properties next door to social housing. To get round this, the social housing on the development I bought into had been guaranteed as 'key worker housing'. This basically meant the properties were subsidised, but could only be sold to teachers, coppers, firemen and NHS staff. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough of a take up with these groups, so as soon as they were finished, they were sold to a housing association. I know it's only one site and is hardly much to go on, but those properties were full of vermin, It was a lovely flat, but I went from loving the place to hating it within weeks and I was so glad when I finally sold it.
Which essentially echoes the sentiments of that lady caller but without the financial aspects involved.. and the quite correct point Hat made about devaluation.
I'd hate to think anyone thought was endorsing what that that obnoxious bint said, I was just giving my experience of the practical issues involved.
It's a complicated issue, it won't get solved on a Hull City football site! As a matter of interest was your apartment in the same block as the social housing ones and did you experience price devaluation when you sold because of the proximity of social housing? Don't answer if you don't want to...
The private apartments were in four gated blocks, the social housing was in a square surrounding the four blocks. When I called in an estate agent to sell it, he said it's a lovely flat, the best I've seen on this development, but to get a decent price, we need to sell it to someone who doesn't know this development. I sold it to a bloke from Leicester.
He's actually just sold it, for well over £100k more than he paid me for it five or six years ago. The **** him.
Aye, so much for social housing devaluing neighbouring property? Cue someone saying well, it would have been 200k more.
If there was only one development that had social housing, it might well affect the price, but as all the new developments have them, it makes little difference. Though personally, I'd never buy another property like my last one, so it might well have a long term effect. Seriously, I was woken by a drug raid at 5.00am every other week, there were five and six year old kids still playing outside at 1.00am, it was like a war zone.
Where I live now I get the effing dawn chorus at 4am, I have to go to bed at 9pm to get a decent nights sleep
Surely it underlines that either previously the testing was worthless or every single local council has been paying for **** they did not order. Or they put it up knowingly.
The difference is the property such as OLM's had social housing in proximity from the start. Chucking it in unexpectedly after it's been built and sold on is obviously a different ball game. If you bought a new build and it transpired 12 months later that there was an unrecorded coal mine underneath it do you think it wouldn't make a difference?
Suggesting that people vacate tower blocks which might catch fire is knee-jerk and silly....They should concentrate on finding dodgy electrical appliances that were purchased from some shop in a rundown market or from the back of a van. That way you'll stop the chance of a fire starting in the first place.
If that's the case, does anyone know how to calculate air velocity in a duct from the volume of air a fan can move and it's static pressure? Including resistance from friction and bends in the duct.
