Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
pipllman

Reducing The Number Of Affordable Houses On A Development

Recommended Posts

Interesting piece covering the Greenwich Peninsula Scheme

Appealing through the legal system to make the 'Economic Viability Report' public - the report on which the decision to allow the number of affordable houses on the development to be reduced was based.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/05/26/dismay-doesnt-do-it-justice-how-a-secret-system-was-used-to-axe-hundreds-of-affordable-homes-on-britains-most-iconic-construction-site/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you - that's a really interesting report. I've printed it off to digest in small chunks as my brain isn't up to much today.

We need more like this on housing in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The developers buy cheap government/ private land ( subsidised by tax payers) , they tell the local council that they will build 40% AFH then once the building works start the developers say they will pay some money for the 40% afh to be relocated elsewhere. example in London they were building a 1 billion apartment complex they turned around and told the local council it wa unsuitable to have social / afh tenants in the block, so they gave 8million to the local council relocate the AFH build somewhere else.

now 8million from a 1 billion pound sale property is nothing. and this is how the developers get tax funded land and make a massive profit.

they should have given the council at least 30%-40% of the total profits when they sold the the allocate afh 40% to private investors, which would have been 200 million, so the developers made around 192million, which should have gone to the tax payers.

Edited by crash2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Builders shouldn't have to supply the so called affordable homes that just go straight to parasitic housing associations. Its just the usual govt nonsense so the can claim t be doing something for "hard working families" , "the poor", "aspirational people" ..... But the cost just goes to the private buyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was discussed again, on the Paul Mason report on Channel 4 News last night.

For the Greenwich Peninsula development, Knight Dragon/Quintain paid "nothing" for the public land, valued at £50m as they were given a £50m affordable housing grant, the public paid them £13.5m .
The deal was for 40% of those properties to be affordable. Now the property developers have backtracked and only 21% will be affordable (presumably they keep as much of the affordable housing grant as they can??).
However, in this context, 'affordable housing' has been hijacked by politicians to mean "housing which is sold at 80% of market value" which could be anything, (instead of the more correct definition of affordable housing which would be: where property price is 4 x average salary - i.e. the main wikipedia definition).
So the real percentage of affordable housing (i.e. compared to salary) is much lower!
It is sad when the very definitions of words are corrupted in this whole nasty scheme.
Here is the video, although the debate with the politicians at the end is not included:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this "affordable" stuff is absolute ******** anyway. If only 20-40% (or whatever the developer can get away with) of houses on a development are '"affordable", who can afford to buy the other 60-80%?

It says a lot about the general intelligence level of the British public that politicians and developers talking about "affordable housing" don't immediately get ripped to shreds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this "affordable" stuff is absolute ******** anyway. If only 20-40% (or whatever the developer can get away with) of houses on a development are '"affordable", who can afford to buy the other 60-80%?

It says a lot about the general intelligence level of the British public that politicians and developers talking about "affordable housing" don't immediately get ripped to shreds.

Perhaps someone could complain to trading standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this "affordable" stuff is absolute ******** anyway. If only 20-40% (or whatever the developer can get away with) of houses on a development are '"affordable", who can afford to buy the other 60-80%?

It says a lot about the general intelligence level of the British public that politicians and developers talking about "affordable housing" don't immediately get ripped to shreds.

+1

The term has played into the hands of the VIs. When every it's used the question of the unaffordable section should be asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it seems to me that affordable can mean a 600k flat but you can buy 25% for 150 and rent the rest so thats ok.

Infact I saw one development like that where the total price was over 600k but to qualify you had to have a household income of under 80k , so clearly they want to trap you into ''owning'' 25% whilst taking rent for the rest forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.