Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
Apparently and I give Labour their due in this; but a lot of money was spent on refurbishing existing council stock.
Consequently new social homes weren't built in the numbers that could have been achieved had those refurbishment works not been carried out.
So rather than just look at straight numbers of properties more look at the monies Govt invested in council or social homes
It is total underinvestment in social homes of all types which is causing problems.
Unfortunately the only answer is to spend more or I prefer to call such spending as investments in new and existing stock.
The RTB policy must be stopped unless at FULL market value with all sale proceeds being used to build new social homes ideally in the same area.
In 2000 the Blair goverment announced that 95% of social housing had to meet certain standards by 2010. The standards were updated in 2006.
Of course they didn't achieve that. 10% still didn't meet the standards in 2010, 25% in London. Still a lot was done. Such as demolishing old tower blocks and prefabs that were too expensive to upgrade, or cladding tower blocks so that they would meet the energy efficiency standards.
Also improving tthe required standard increases the cost of building new stock. Basically the emphasis seems to have been on quality over quantity.
Which wasn't unreasonable I suggest.
Though of course the cladding issue has some resonance today following the Grenfell debacle.
Perhaps not all monies were wisely invested
But as you suggest there still remains a lot of improving to do
Funny isn't it that social housing is allowed to degrade but if a private LL couldn't afford works there would be hell to pay!!
But it is obvious that the taxpayer is on the hook for social housing maintenance
This is the social contract that Govt makes with HB tenants.
Yes it costs the taxpayer fortunes.
But it is probably cheaper than paying HB to private LL.
Pretty academic now as private LL are refusing to let to HB tenants.
So TA is far more costly than retaining and maintain existing social homes and building new ones!
The UK is a low wage economy.
Social homes are vitally needed
It is pointless the political parties trying to outdo each other on social home building.
They just need to resource what is required
No money no social homes.
Just get on with it and top arguing who has delivered more as it is clearly a more nuanced issue .As you suggest more money is still required to refurbishment existing stock.
More money required.
It just has to be accepted that more money needs to be invested in social housing no matter how much such borrowing costs
You can't leave vast swathes of a population unhoused
Of course it was reasonable. Especially if you weren't expecting the levels of migration that subsequently happened.
Yep it just has to be accepted for a variety of reasons social housing has been under invested in.
Mass uncontrolled immigration revealed the inadequacy of housing in the SE.
So a lot more taxpayer money is required to invest in social homes and their upkeep.
Low waged migrants are costing the taxpayer billions and they were never needed.
But we are where we are.
So the taxpayer is going to have to suck it up.
I would even be prepared to pay more tax that was hypothacated to see such housing built though I would qualify how it was spent.
A penny in the pound or rather 2 pennies would be valid.
1 for the NHS and 1 for social housing providing British nationals were given first choice of such social homes IRRESPECTIVE of need!