What's with the x% of new houses assigned to social housing?

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,262
Location
Northallerton/Harrogate
I just moved house into a nice area/estate, I found a shortcut through the estate to work... we're at the non-council end, but it seems that 20% of the houses have been given to scummers on benefits. Complete with old beds and rusting ford escorts with flat tyres on the drives, alsatians barking at you through the windows, bins overflowing with general filth and a front garden full of broken toys, presumably stolen or bought with my hard-earned and stolen tax money. Oh and the covers for the gas/electricity boxes have been ripped off and are festooned all over the drive.

I feel a tactical nuke would benefit the area greatly.


Why do the government insist on ruining nice areas by installing scummy scroungers there? It's rather eerie.

You can be nonchalantly flouncing down the road on the way to work; the sun is shining, the birds are singing and the air feels good in your lungs. Then all of a sudden the birdsong stops. The sky darkens and the air becomes stale. You feel a chill down your spine and the piercing gaze of scummy council house residents upon you.
You try to quicken your pace, but your feet feel bogged down by the layer of lower-class citizen scum that's oozing out of the houses onto the pavement. A dying cat lets out its last mew in the gutter. Dozens of fat, invisible sausage fingers grasp at your clothes, trying to pull you back, but you manage to force your way past, back into the sunshine of the main road. The air clears and the birds swoop down to cheerily greet your return to normality.

All you can think is "**** the labour party".

Some families/people work really damn hard to be able to afford a house in a nice area, with similarly hard-working neighbours and create a nice neighbourhood of friendship and trust.
Why should they be penalised for trying to better themselves/the life of their family by being forced to live near scummy people who contribute nothing.
 
Some families/people work really damn hard to be able to afford a house in a nice area, with similarly hard-working neighbours and create a nice neighbourhood of friendship and trust.

Well evidently it isn't a nice area by the sounds. :confused:
 
I believe there should be a points scheme, those who are proven to look after their house, make it a nice place to live and are obviously better 'scummers on benefits' than others should be assigned the nicer housing.

People that wallow in **** should be given ****.
 
Well evidently it isn't a nice area by the sounds. :confused:

The government's current policy is to spread the pain like typical socialists. Make everyone suffer the crap by forcing a certain percentage of most new build developments to be for housing associations.

It's rapidly getting to the state that you're never more than 5 or 10 minutes from a scummy area, even if it's only a single road or something.

The chav scum love it, it means they don't have to travel as far to find stuff to steal/burn for fun...
 
The government's current policy is to spread the pain like typical socialists. Make everyone suffer the crap by forcing a certain percentage of most new build developments to be for housing associations.

It's rapidly getting to the state that you're never more than 5 or 10 minutes from a scummy area, even if it's only a single road or something.

The chav scum love it, it means they don't have to travel as far to find stuff to steal/burn for fun...

Oh, I wasn't aware of this, havn't seen i thappen 'round here.

Down with New Labour etc.
 
Where I live used to be the real **** end of the town. It was so bad chavs stayed clear.

The council shipped them all out, Wimpey and Bett Homes knocked it down and a new estate was built. The only issue is and no one quite no why but they left about 10 houses from the old Beirut, it is like a spot on your back you can't quite reach.
 
But the poor lambs must be given nice houses to bring up their hord of illegitimate children in, society has crushed their little souls and it is our duty to make them as comfortable as possible!
 
But the poor lambs must be given nice houses to bring up their hord of illegitimate children in, society has crushed their little souls and it is our duty to make them as comfortable as possible

Or as they are called in Crewe, Chlamydiae Single Motherus.
 
To be honest that's why I've never voted anything other than Conservative.

We need to help those that need it, what we don't need is them sticking two fingers up at the society that helped them!

People that wallow in **** should be given ****.

Agreed
 
Last edited:
Oh, I wasn't aware of this, havn't seen i thappen 'round here.
Any new housing builds nowadays has to have a certain percentage of housing built for "social" tennants.

Now we have the promise of some 70,000 more affordable homes by 2011, along with at least 50,000 new “social homes”.
Most private housing builders will only get planning permission if they agree to build a certain amount of lower quality, 'affordable' housing.
 
its often a clause in the contract for the land sold to the developer..the local authority will have a box to tick on some performance indicator from the govt....and as a lot of housing is being built on brownfield sites now when the council makes the sale of the land they will say x% goes to social housing...now normally this isnt actually the council, its is usually a Housing Association (but to get round the problem you describe of having scummy families, a smart builder will build bungalows designed for the elderly for rental, so you only get little old people living in them. You still fullfill the criteria of having x number of homes for rent but you dont have the worry of chav families as the council will have rules set down for the referral and allocation of specifically designed homes for the elderly, so the developer ticks all the right boxes and so does the council)
 
The developer can "buy out" of this provision by giving the local council a big bag with "swag" written on it, a friend of mine lives in a posh development in Cambridge and they have zero social housing ;)
 
Belvedere

bell.jpg


HEADRAT
 
Last edited:
Any new housing builds nowadays has to have a certain percentage of housing built for "social" tennants.

Most private housing builders will only get planning permission if they agree to build a certain amount of lower quality, 'affordable' housing.

None of the new developments in my village have had to build any sort of "social housing". I guess different rules apply for small developments (<20 houses) and for places that aren't in cities.
 
Ah right. The spanking new flats at Riverside also got out of building social housing - because they're building on a flood plain. And those Belvedere flats are ridiculous - commuter flats for Londoners, £450,000.
 
Ah right. The spanking new flats at Riverside also got out of building social housing - because they're building on a flood plain. And those Belvedere flats are ridiculous. £450,000.

Don't want the poor underprivileged hard-done-to souls homes getting wet now do we? They can't steal home insurance.
 
Don't want the poor underprivileged hard-done-to souls homes getting wet now do we? They can't steal home insurance.

The only downside to living in Cambridge, that I can see, is that we've been targeted by the government as part of its new builds program - because we've got lots of wide open space. So yeah, lets build crappy housing on it!

There are slated to be four new build towns around here by 2015, it's going to murder the infrastructure. The two going up near the A14 have to be the most poorly thought out bit of planning I know. The A14 can't handle its current traffic levels, let alone ~20,000 new houses.
 
Back
Top Bottom