Forum Topic

Hounslow Expands Council Home Building Programme

I have some questions about this item.(1) The total money being used for the 1000 new homes is, according to the report, a grant of £168m and borrowing of £289m. That's a total of £457m. So it would appear that each home is to be built at a cost of £457,000. Isn't that rather expensive? What will be the mix of the homes in terms of the number of bedrooms? Will the homes be built on Council-owned land?(2) 2) Cllr Tom Bruce is quoted as saying that Hounslow has "a fantastic track record of delivering homes for local people". But when we turn to the Council's published assessment of its housing record the picture seems rather different. The Council's Housing Strategy 2019-2014 tells us that population growth in the borough is exceeding the provision of new homes and that this is producing a trend towards more overcrowding (page 36). The same document informs us that the demand for larger family homes is increasing. Another Council housing publication says that 50% of new homes need to be larger family homes (3+ bedrooms).The Local Plan says that new developments should have at least 30% of larger family homes (in the market and social/affordable sectors). And yet the Planning Committee approves large developments like that for the Tesco-Homebase sites that don't come near meeting even the Local Plan requirement. It is not clear to me how this can be described as a "fantastic" provision of homes for local people?(3) Are the thousand new homes promised additional to the 5000 new homes promised in the Housing Strategy 2019-2014 or are they a repackaging of part of that 5000? The report implies that they are extra to the 5000. I would just like to be clear that that is the case.

David Pavett ● 469d13 Comments

Must have been five of us Chris 😃

Jim Lawes ● 462d

£10 Poms - of which my sister was one - she is still there 63 years later. Although she has recently told me that when she finally goes to meet her Maker she has made arrangements to 'come home' - registered post - to be signed for! Apparently if you happen to know someone flying from Oz to the UK at the time you depart - you can be stuffed in their luggage and do things that way, I have warned her not to pop off anytime soon just in case she gets caught up in the postal strike! Sorry for veering off the original subject.....

Vanessa Smith ● 462d

£10 Pommes.

Chris Dakers ● 462d

Some 50 years ago ..we were given the opportunity to escape local madness... by taking up the offer to escape to Australia for ...£50?

Jim Lawes ● 462d

The problem is is much of the 'derelict land or available space contains vital infrastructure below ground. Major pipe work, ducting, cables etc or is contaminated ground. Or is simply land that vents marsh gases and natural ground toxins.Never mentioned is the cost of removing, diverting or purifying these often small sites but the cost way exceeds the building cost and the value of the property to the point that it may never be viable and uses a huge amount of taxpayers money to house just one or two families.Additionally it often means reducing the infrastructure and long term environment damage that affects dozens of properties homes and businesses.It's never that simple trying to fit a Quart into a Pint.

Raymond Havelock ● 462d

In answer to David's original question I think the numbers may incorporate other costs such as maintenance and interest expense which makes the cost per unit seem high. Hard to know whether this is prudent or not from the council. Borrowing at the maximum sustainable level leaves little room for error. With much of rent being effectively guaranteed by the government, the revenue side looks secure but the cost side is much less predictable. The first signs of distress will be rapidly declining standards of maintenance.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 463d

The advantage local authorities should have when they want to build social housing is that in some cases they own the land, which should reduce the outlay to building costs only.  They also retain a long term appreciating asset which brings in a steady income, as council houses of old used to do.  That's not the deal you get with private developers.

Peter Evans ● 466d

Guy, I was commenting on the external appearance, not the interiors which I have not seen.

Chris Dakers ● 466d

One can fully accept prudent use of public funding means low cost homes may be simpler or more basic in design, but given that stuff palmed off and being built with the 'luxury' tag is barely any different -except for the trimmings, makes it inexcusable for so many poor or oppressive designs. Unfortunately the entire country is riddled with poor planned and built designs from the mid 1960s to the present day.There are but a few which show it can be done and have endured and a few that showed amazing promise but have weathered and aged rapidly and are not successful.Probably why 130 year old properties with the scars of the blitz and wear and tear are still desirable and over priced even with the high degree of maintenance.But the key is those old designs are flexible, durable and the environs more harmonious to live in .  And have never been 'luxury builds'.  They were in the main industrial support housing and not intended to last very long. I'm sure those figures must be wrong but if they are not, a real close look must be actioned.

Raymond Havelock ● 466d

I disagree profoundly about the design in Hering Close, the development on the site of Acton Lodge. I don't like the grey bricks facing London Rod but the houses within are very nice in my opinion. The were built by Lampton Homes, using good architects, as have the others we have built under Lampton (which I'm closest to).Of course there's plenty of room to disagree about architecture!I agree the numbers are odd - colleagues are checking where  they come from.

Guy Lambert ● 467d

Yes, something is not right about this.I have just looked at the original news posting on the Council website. It is even stranger that the information posted on this forum. It implies that the build cost of each new Council home will be £1 million!https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/news/article/2798/hounslow_gives_green_light_for_1_billion_investment_to_build_council_homes

David Pavett ● 468d

Indeed something does seem out of kilter.I have just seen the original news item for this on the Council website. In fact it says that it is going to invest a million pounds for 1000 new Council homes. That is one million pounds per home. This needs some explanation.https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/news/article/2798/hounslow_gives_green_light_for_1_billion_investment_to_build_council_homes

David Pavett ● 468d

Often wondered whether it is the horrendous designs of Council developments that propagate so much social discord withing so many of them.  The oppressive and depressing designs, poor landscaping and facility layout often feels more like a punishment to live there rather than be happy, safe and desirable.Look at what was built as council housing 70 plus years back and it is still far more pleasing and sociable and far less stigmatised but again many are spoiled by very poor design standards of upgrading and often suffer from occupier neglect and vandalism which for far to long was simply never tackled.So when a figure of £475,000 is proffered per home ( if that is correct) then why are they still building cheap nasty looking basic homes ?  Something very wrong somewhere.

Raymond Havelock ● 468d

I hope that some of the £457m is spent on good design. Or it still the policy that social tenants can live in crap looking properties, eg the Acton Lodge development in Brentford. The houses in the example given looks very odd. Perhaps the photo does not do it justice.

Chris Dakers ● 469d