You May Also Like
Is stealing from a large, chain supermarket immoral?
- October 20, 2022
- 25 comments
I recently got into a bit of an argument with my friends about this, and some are angry…
WFH? What do you do during your lunchbreak?
- August 3, 2023
- 34 comments
As above, really. I need some inspiration and motivation to make more of the hour. I’m assuming I…
Why do we have such an unhealthy relationship with alcohol?
- July 1, 2023
- 15 comments
Is it a historical thing? It’s just something I can’t wrap my head around. In the past week…
4 comments
A lot of developments have a requirement to provide some “affordable” housing.
New build developments are required to provide some ‘affordable housing’ – by law this currently has to cover 10% of the development but under a current review this may increase to 25%.
All social housing is affordable housing, not all affordable housing is social housing. Affordable housing includes homes for social rent, shared ownership schemes, and homes sold under market value.
Snob.. affordable housing is shared ownership.. millionaires can be cunts too social class and bank balance has nothing to do with being good neighbors or people. All new developments have both so you can’t avoid them. Your middle class neighbors could rent out to whoever they want and there will be no housing officer or social landlord to complain to. Those flat were probably private social tenants have strict rules about upkeep.
Very much no. Affordable means jack in this country due to our leaders perception of affordable. Most people on modest salaries can’t afford affordable. Nor a single person on an above average one.
Social means ‘can live in there on state benefits’, essentially. They used to be called council houses, but the councils decided to sell most of them and not build any more. In Plymouth, they straight up moved people out and let developers revamp them into ‘luxury sea view homes’. Likely because they set aside a small percentage as ‘affordable’ to gain planning permission.