> It said the developer’s profit would be 2% compared to the “reasonable assumption” of 15 to 20% under national policy.
Is that per home or for the estate? 2% profit on 32 of 125 seems more than fine if you’re making 15-20% on the rest no?
OpticalData on
>However, the council said it did not agree with the methodology of the financial viability assessment, and although it recognised the market had worsened since the site was bought in 2022, the scheme would deliver “more than sufficient profit”.
Investments may go up or down
Ramiren on
Most new build houses are shit when they’re actually turning a profit, imagine how shit these will be when they’re forced to build them as “affordable” for even less profit.
I’d get these triple checked before putting any money down.
ice-lollies on
When it says there are no credible offers to manage the affordable homes does that mean the council/housing associations aren’t willing to do that?
If so, why are the council still insisting on building them if they don’t want to manage them?
neeow_neeow on
This is the reason I’d never buy new build again. The first place I bought was on an estate with a social housing allocation. The difference was night and day – the social housing section was covered in trash, many people sitting in fold up plastic chairs in the street during the day drinking cans and smoking. It was basically all the stereotypes you can imagine. And the noise – loud music at night etc, especially in the summer.
JustGhostin on
This sub has such a hard on for new build estate posts of all shapes and sizes
backcountry57 on
New houses are being built are terrible quality. Thats when the company is making a decent profit.
2% means that if anything goes wrong they will lose money. Those builders are going to be cutting every corner possible to keep that 2% or make an extra 1%
m_s_m_2 on
Affordable mandates are often misunderstood on reddit.
In-short, they operate on a cross-subsidy model. The affordable houses are built at cost and sold to housing associations. The developers make a loss on these houses.
So who subsidises this loss? The other buyers, *not* the developers. The developers gauge whether there’s a market for a price whereby the private buyers can subsidise the social renters.
So if you purchase a new build, it’s not the developers who are subsidising social housing – it’s *you*.
Speaking to this misunderstanding, the article says:
> It was also highlighted that Taylor Wimpey will pay more than £1m towards local services under Section 106 contributions.
Taylor Wimpey aren’t paying that £1m – the buyers are! Yes they pay up-front, but ultimately it’s all factored into the price that private buyers eventually pay.
Effectively, Section 106 contributions, Community Infrastructure Levies and Affordable Housing mandates are all taxes. But it’s the buyer who coughs up for these taxes, not the developers.
Aeceus on
Guarantee they’re all shite houses instead of making the most of the land with apartment buildings and nice community areas.
SpiceSnizz on
“It said the developer’s profit would be 2% compared to the “reasonable assumption” of 15 to 20% under national policy.”
Just a reminder the developer Taylor Wimpey made 686 million profit of which 337 million was paid out in dividends to shareholders.
Old_Housing3989 on
Since no one else seems to have said it: it’s because they can’t sell the other properties for as much when they come with “affordable” neighbours.
JimJonesdrinkkoolaid on
This is why imo it’s a bad idea to rely on the private sector to build the vast majority of the housing that the country needs. 1.5 million over the next 5 years, which is still isn’t enough in all honesty based on immigration numbers, etc.
MasterMell on
Anyone else feel like theyre trying to price out the entire country?
13 Comments
> It said the developer’s profit would be 2% compared to the “reasonable assumption” of 15 to 20% under national policy.
Is that per home or for the estate? 2% profit on 32 of 125 seems more than fine if you’re making 15-20% on the rest no?
>However, the council said it did not agree with the methodology of the financial viability assessment, and although it recognised the market had worsened since the site was bought in 2022, the scheme would deliver “more than sufficient profit”.
Investments may go up or down
Most new build houses are shit when they’re actually turning a profit, imagine how shit these will be when they’re forced to build them as “affordable” for even less profit.
I’d get these triple checked before putting any money down.
When it says there are no credible offers to manage the affordable homes does that mean the council/housing associations aren’t willing to do that?
If so, why are the council still insisting on building them if they don’t want to manage them?
This is the reason I’d never buy new build again. The first place I bought was on an estate with a social housing allocation. The difference was night and day – the social housing section was covered in trash, many people sitting in fold up plastic chairs in the street during the day drinking cans and smoking. It was basically all the stereotypes you can imagine. And the noise – loud music at night etc, especially in the summer.
This sub has such a hard on for new build estate posts of all shapes and sizes
New houses are being built are terrible quality. Thats when the company is making a decent profit.
2% means that if anything goes wrong they will lose money. Those builders are going to be cutting every corner possible to keep that 2% or make an extra 1%
Affordable mandates are often misunderstood on reddit.
In-short, they operate on a cross-subsidy model. The affordable houses are built at cost and sold to housing associations. The developers make a loss on these houses.
So who subsidises this loss? The other buyers, *not* the developers. The developers gauge whether there’s a market for a price whereby the private buyers can subsidise the social renters.
So if you purchase a new build, it’s not the developers who are subsidising social housing – it’s *you*.
Speaking to this misunderstanding, the article says:
> It was also highlighted that Taylor Wimpey will pay more than £1m towards local services under Section 106 contributions.
Taylor Wimpey aren’t paying that £1m – the buyers are! Yes they pay up-front, but ultimately it’s all factored into the price that private buyers eventually pay.
Effectively, Section 106 contributions, Community Infrastructure Levies and Affordable Housing mandates are all taxes. But it’s the buyer who coughs up for these taxes, not the developers.
Guarantee they’re all shite houses instead of making the most of the land with apartment buildings and nice community areas.
“It said the developer’s profit would be 2% compared to the “reasonable assumption” of 15 to 20% under national policy.”
Just a reminder the developer Taylor Wimpey made 686 million profit of which 337 million was paid out in dividends to shareholders.
Since no one else seems to have said it: it’s because they can’t sell the other properties for as much when they come with “affordable” neighbours.
This is why imo it’s a bad idea to rely on the private sector to build the vast majority of the housing that the country needs. 1.5 million over the next 5 years, which is still isn’t enough in all honesty based on immigration numbers, etc.
Anyone else feel like theyre trying to price out the entire country?