Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 12 2013, 01:40 PM

Reading the NWN, it seems our illustrious council agreed for the affordable home quota (which was paid for by the tax-payer to the tune of around £900,000.00) to remain empty until 'most' of the 'lucrative' homes there were sold first! According to the NWN, 19 can be released once 74 'private' homes are sold, but then 120 homes have to be occupied before the remain 18 can be made available.

Incredible.

Posted by: Claude Sep 12 2013, 03:03 PM

Quite the opposite, I find it more than credible. It's clear they're having difficulty selling these properties but I imagine that would be made considerably more challenging if the 'affordable' homes were populated with poorly-behaved tenants.

What are the arguments against a new housing estate built solely to meet the needs of those seeking affordable housing?

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 12 2013, 07:52 PM

Ghettoisation

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 22 2013, 12:46 PM

That's not an argument against it, rather a description. The prices of these flats will soon drop once the social allocation starts to fill up. I feel sorry for those who have bought into the Newbury vision only to see their view blocked by graffiti, littering and foul mouthed neighbours.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 22 2013, 06:14 PM

Does that description apply to all tenants of Housing Association property or just the ones moving into new apartments?

I know people, new to the area, but have purchased. They think the 'social' allocation is for local people!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 22 2013, 06:45 PM

I feel sorry for those people who cannot afford a home.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 23 2013, 03:42 PM

Yes, I do too but there are some who abuse the system which tarnishes the good guys.

Posted by: motormad Sep 23 2013, 03:54 PM

While I think I agree with your sentiment, I don't think all people in social housing are the kind of people to go on Jeremy Kyle show..

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 23 2013, 06:59 PM

Nah, not all, just most!

Posted by: user23 Sep 23 2013, 09:18 PM

That view is a bit high and mighty, isn't it?

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 23 2013, 09:51 PM

Welcome to the Court of Public Opinion!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 23 2013, 10:00 PM

The Prime Minister presently has just rooms in rented accommodation and certainly doesn't pay a market rent. Arguably social housing, necessary because his 'key worker' job doesn't pay enough. Believe me, there are some pretty dreadful people in private houses; would you like living next door to me for example!

Posted by: blackdog Sep 25 2013, 03:02 PM

I have had a wander around the roof area of Parkway and was struck by how dreadful many of the flat/houselets are - like goldfish bowls - open plan living with a glass wall to the public walkways. They would have to pay me to live in one of those. On the other hand the flat I was visiting was perfectly pleasant and would have been a bargain at half the price.

Posted by: Mr Brown Sep 25 2013, 07:28 PM

I moved here from a house share in Streatham a month ago - job change and all that. Managed to get a small one bed flat looking over the shops. Receptionist at new office suggested it. Flat really great and surprisingly cheap, Morning commute just over half hour door to door. All local conveniences just outside. Have great new job, brilliant flat and a fast developing relationship with a Receptionist!

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 25 2013, 07:53 PM

Goodness. A happy bunny indeed. I hope all 3 ventures continue well.
ce

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 26 2013, 08:13 AM

But you won't ever have to look at someone's car through your front window!

Posted by: Mr Brown Sep 26 2013, 08:34 AM

Thank you!!

Still looking good! Day off today so I could see in some new bits of furniture - just been delivered so we are going for a long walk. Apparently there is even an outside swimming pool close by; so I'm going to be shown.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 26 2013, 08:34 AM

Most things are bargains at half the price.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 26 2013, 08:37 AM

But not necessarily a good buy at full price.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 10:05 AM

I presume you understand the sarcasm in the original post!

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 26 2013, 01:17 PM

Still looking good!

Careful Mr Brown. Don't be too positive about Newbury or you might be considered a Town Council stooge.
ce

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2013, 02:14 PM

Ooh good, we might be able to unload some Newbury flags! Just hope he doesn't want an allotment.

Posted by: Mr Brown Sep 26 2013, 05:33 PM

Great day wandering through the parks by the Canal, saw the swimming pools, lunch in Market Place and then discovered the Library. All in all, still happy to be here! Still really can't see what's wrong with these flats, or indeed the shopping centre below.

Reading some of the comments here, the Council comes over as the local hate figure. I'll just carry on ignoring them.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 07:26 PM

It's a long story, but lets say if one is fortunate enough to be able to make use of Parkway as you have, then they are less likely to understand or care! Sorry, I know that sounds patronising.

Not wishing to sound off, but it would have been nice if Parkway and the flats would have been a benefit to locals rather than 'relying' on people coming from out of town to patronise them, however I do hope you enjoy your stay.


Who? The posters, or the council?


...you don't write for the council do you? ...only joking!

Posted by: Mr Brown Sep 27 2013, 07:02 AM

You sound like one of the good old boys who don't like change and saying wouldn't want one moving next door to me!! Many people would like to stay and live where they were born, but it just isn't possible these days. As for me, I was born are brought up in London, dear opposite Russell Square tube and I'd love to have stayed. Our 2 bed flat which was rented now goes for £600,000, or I could have a studio down the road for £250,000. No can do, so where do you want me to live? In a box outside the IMax? So these flats should have been built to benefit the locals? Well, what's wrong with the locals actually buying them then, I don't think there has been any restriction!

Just for the record, I don't work for the Council; have never had any dealings with them or the Councils where I used to live, so take no interest. Perhaps that will change now I'm here. So far I like what I've seen - this has been the only cloud!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2013, 08:08 AM

That's a good approach with the council! Glad you like the area and your new flat. I quite agree, Parkway does seem a great place to live. Personally, I think it's a great design and blends in very well with the general architecture of the Town. The site used to be semi derelict commercial land; quite dreadful. Newbury is expanding rapidly, so the new development actually sits well with this population increase. Of course, the voice of reaction is ever present, but hopefully declining. You'll find there is a strata of unreconstructed thinking that still believes the 1950s can be preserved! That's why we need the museum extension - somewhere to leave these attitudes. It's great to see the town centre filling up and bustling, hope you'll be able to plant your roots deep.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 08:10 AM

Perhaps you might like to read the thread's title to get a measure of one of the reason people resent the way things are before you tell people who they are! While you wonder on your cloud of bliss, admiring the the quaint and lovely scenery, local people need homes to live in! 37 lie empty because of the submissive deal the council (barely) brokered with the owners!

I personally don't care where people come from, but if the council are to give away a piece of prime land for a £1.00, I'd like to think the results would be more inclusive! Having people move here from the city is one of the problems we have as the spending power from that migration simply makes the plight of the lower income bracket even worse.

My feelings about Parkway are not selfish, as you imply.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 08:16 AM

I infer that you think people preferred the area to remain a derelict car-park. Being against this construction doesn't mean that people were happy about what came before it. Personally I think it is architecturally incongruous and looms large over the park. However, it's architectural merits are not my main concern. It's public land being given away to an elite few that I see as a bigger issue.

Posted by: Mr Brown Sep 27 2013, 09:00 AM

In effect, you are saying that we incomers from the 'city' are taking homes from local people; simply because you think we have more money. That seems to suggest local people haven't got the wit to earn decent wages. The girl who told me about Parkway, works at my office in Reading, she's lived in Newbury all her life. Then, take my Mum, we had to move from our flat in Russell Square and the rich people took over. My Mum still lives that way, in a smaller place where she is very happy - she thinks the area has got better. Local people HAVE got plenty of homes to choose from and at quite reasonable prices. Look ion the house sale sites.

Not quite sure what your concerns are about the commercial goings on with the site landlords. When the contract was signed, the market was very different. Commercial contracts are always a negotiation - can't see anything wrong with that. Out of this development, local people got a great new shopping centre and a good few more reasonably priced flats than they had before the place was built.

I'm still not sure what your problem is, apart from worries about having new people moving to the area.

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 27 2013, 09:08 AM

At least we didn't get one if those inside shopping centres like Basingstoke. I don't know what happened, but what's the issue with public land? Was there a park or something on the site beforehand?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 09:27 AM

There are plenty of homes for people on above average wages, yes, but I am not talking about them. I am not complaining about the area as a whole either. I don't know where that come from.


'reasonably priced' is relative. It seems, however, that 37 lie empty because the owner hasn't shifted the more exclusive one yet. As for a great new shopping center, that's another matter of opinion and is largely irrelevant in this thread. Personally, I don't think it is a great new shopping center, mind you it cost the ability to park in the town for free and that affects everyone who drives here, whether one likes Parkway or not. Obviously, I don't speak for everyone, and many will disagree with me.


I think it is quite clear what my problem is; I think the title of the thread makes that obvious. Where people come from doesn't bother me, but please understand that as people move in to Newbury, it is bound to make house prices rise, and unless you are selling to move somewhere cheaper, that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 09:30 AM

I think it should have been covered and simply based on a shopping experience, Basingstoke wins hands down, whether it is in the main shopping centre or the plentiful 'warehouse' outlets on the outskirts. They seem to have all the top nationals in their town too, and that seems to include all the main supermarkets.*

The issue with public land is that I believe what it was used for should have been more inclusive and that the council should have waited for the market to rise.

*It is still a toilet though!

Posted by: Cognosco Sep 27 2013, 02:05 PM

Agreed! And the next 1/2 of Newbury is going to be given away so no healthy £1.00 profit even. Unless now the housing market is supposedly recovering, prices rising, we may be able to get £2.00 profit this time.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2013, 02:13 PM

So then, you would have been happy with a bland shed just like Basingstoke' that's a view of course, but it would have turned Newbury into the same sort of town, a toilet in your description. If that's what you want, fine.

Not quite sure what 'more inclusive' means. The site contains shops and accommodation of various types. What else could have gone there? There will be 'social housing' whatever that may mean, but in any event, if you look at what's on offer, there is a wide range of types and prices.

Yes, the Council could have waited 'till the market rises. If they did, build costs would have escalated and equally, we'd still be waiting. Let's be honest, no one actually saw how deep and how long the recession would be.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 02:25 PM

There is more than one way to have a sheltered shopping experience. Architects are paid to be inventive, and if I could mug towns off like the ones that do with places like Basingstoke and Newbury, I'd be one.


Well wide numbers for those prices, yes. By inclusive, perhaps that could include occupying the bloody flats we (taxpayers) have actually paid for!


I'm not sure the recession has much to do with whether the council should have sold the land for a £1.00 and paid for homes to be built and then have to wait while people remain without a secured home to occupy them (RE: the OP)!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2013, 03:14 PM

Glad you appreciate the architectural merits of Parkway. It actually blends in with the old town and at the same time is different to the usual run of things. That's innovation is it not?

Weird; moan about the shortage of homes,developer builds some new ones and increases the districts housing stock and that's wrong!!! What do you actually want?

The issue with the social housing is a contractual negotiation, up to our Councillors to sort. One issue they might like to consider is the whole issue of 'social' or so called affordable housing is why its needed in the first place. If local employees paid properly, it wouldn't be needed.

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 27 2013, 07:48 PM

I think it would have been the ideal place for the cinema and the library. They could have still put some flats in as well. If they'd done that they could have done it bit by bit.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 08:10 PM

In my view it certainly doesn't blend in; it is a carbuncle. What is does do is pave the way for more 'grandiose' designs. It looks like Newbury's Berlin Wall to me. Like walking past Reading HMP. However, that is all bye-the-bye and irrelevant. I would imagine more people like it than not.


You're being disingenuous, you know perfectly well what I am on about, the clue is in the title of the thread. There is a shortage of affordable homes and 37 lie empty as we speak (allegedly).


As if the council have the wherewithal to do that, you are being daft now.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 08:13 PM

I quite agree.

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 27 2013, 08:54 PM

Keeping it simple, we could have saved the town.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2013, 09:15 PM

I suspect we are really in violent agreement. OK, I should respect your personal opinion of the architecture; which is, after all, in the eye of the beholder. I don't agree that we have anything to worry about as the town fills up. However, we would have no issue at all if we had even a decent volume of affordable homes. It is simply daft to hold constructed flats back which could otherwise be occupied, of course, the agents might be trying to throttle back the for sale ones for their own reasons, but keeping the 'social' ones back makes no sense. I don't subscribe to the view that social tenants are in anyway undesirable. The idea should be that no one knows the difference.

It's a big subject and it may seem daft expecting the council to do something about wages for key workers. Nonetheless, that's part of the issue and they are big key worker employers. Take say Richmond, or islington, beloved of the rich. Their kids have to go to school. The school needs teachers and caretakers etc. etc. ideally they need to live nearby. Yet we pay (particularly the support staff) peanuts! What chance do they have?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 09:42 PM

Yes, it is a paradox.

Posted by: DJE Sep 28 2013, 08:02 PM

Swings and roundabouts. People move into Newbury; but on the other hand, some homes got built in Newbury.

The net total of homes in the country increased accordingly. Which is a good thing, and in theory reduces the pressure on house prices, which is also a good thing.

I have not seen the Park Way homes close up, but if they are high quality, I am all for it. Again, market forces will make all such homes incrementally more affordable, as, by their construction, they have been added to the total housing stock.

I would like to see everyone able to live in good quality housing,

I do find the phrase 'affordable housing' idiotic though.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 28 2013, 10:07 PM

Quite. As I think you've said before, the whole system of state meddling has artificially increased house prices to the point where ordinary people, and especially ordinary young people, can't afford to live anywhere, and yet more meddling isn't the answer. The state needs to quit all this this "affordable" nonsense, relax planning control to give presumed consent for any quality sustainable development, and if businesses in expensive districts can't recruit key-workers (whatever they are) at the salary they're offering then they need to offer a higher salary.

Posted by: Ron Sep 28 2013, 10:23 PM

What is or who are 'ordinary people'?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 28 2013, 10:31 PM

I'm thinking that they're neither privileged offspring of wealthy parents, nor feckless no-hopers, they're just ordinary, average, typical working people.

Posted by: Ron Sep 29 2013, 08:56 AM

There must be h**l of a lot of offspring of wealthy parents or feckless no hopers in Newbury by the number of houses being sold!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 29 2013, 09:32 AM

It is just a label for average wage earner affording an average priced home.


I'm sorry Simon, but that won't and doesn't happen, but this is why we see more foreign workers filling those slots; not higher wages, which fuels wage inflation. The best paid key worker wages cannot afford an average priced home (in West Berkshire). And planning guidelines were relaxed for Parkway, but we still have 37 lower value home being held back. It's ridiculous.

Increasing the housing stock that the majority cannot afford, for people to move into from out of town will do nothing to help people already here renting or living at home seeking their first home.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2013, 09:46 AM

If you've got a sensible point to make, why not just make it in a sensible way. Those already on the housing ladder may well be buying and selling because for them the differential cost is not that great if they're not trading up, but ordinary young people starting out have a difficult time finding decent affordable starter housing or moving up to family housing.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2013, 10:07 AM

I'm talking about a radical repeal of planning control so that housing associations can build sustainable housing on any greenfield site, and I think I'd give them the power to compulsory purchase too. That would end speculation on development land, and it would allow not-for-profit housing associations to supply the market with the quality housing that it needs and allow the free market to set the price.

I fundamentally disagree with your take on the economics of wage inflation. In a free market if the job doesn't pay enough to attract applicants then the job just isn't paying enough, and if the employer can't afford to pay any more then the job doesn't need doing. You get wage inflation if there is a shortage of applicants, but there is no shortage of people willing to do these "key" jobs, the jobs just don't pay enough to live on. So if those jobs really are "key", then the employer needs to pay a living wage. Of course the cost of paying "key" workers a living wage will be passed on to service users and consumers in the region and if they can afford the cost of living there then fine, but if they can't afford it then they can move somewhere cheaper to live, and this will of course reduce the need for those "key" workers and the cost of employing them can then fall - that's how a free market works. What the state does is tax everyone to subsidise artificial funny-money "affordable" housing schemes, which actually maintains the cost of housing artificially high - pure Adam Smith.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 29 2013, 10:28 AM

Simon, have you not noticed the big increase in foreign works in the lower skilled sector - carriers, hospitals, etc? It was wage inflation that sponsored governments to open the boarders.

Posted by: DJE Sep 29 2013, 10:53 AM

Using immigration to drive down wages. At the same time, putting pressure on housing, driving house prices up further.

All very nice for landowners, MPs with taxpayer-funded second homes, etc.

As is the money-laundering merry-go-round for foreign criminals and despots that is the London property market.

And now, in a desperate move to prop up the deflating property bubble, the Government is panicing and bringing forward the Help to Sell Buy scheme, which is designed to put upwards pressure on house prices, making them... more difficult to buy.

At the same time the HTB scheme means that mortgage loans will be underwritten by the taxpayer, encouraging banks to be reckless with lending again. Another moral hazard, with the taxpayer on the hook, the eventual new bailout of banks being built into HTB.

The banks and politicians have learned nothing, other than how to reflate property bubbles and fleece the taxpayer.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 29 2013, 11:46 AM

My personal take on this is that you are both right. Simon is using the pure economic view. AndyC has countered with what's happened in reality. The economic rule on wages works inside a boarder, the trouble is our boarder is now European. That actually means dedicated Europeans are expecting economies to 'level' across Europe, which will bring things back to the status quo inside the European boarder. As we can see today its going to take a very very very long time!! So, I suppose that does mean the only way out would be intervention in the housing market and particularly the creation and set up of more and better not for profit housing associations. Ideally, if we could also start moving away from the property ownership fetish; I think we all need a significant stake in our own home and it's immediate environs, but that doesn't necessarily mean personally owning it

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 29 2013, 08:36 PM

That was the way it was and in Newbury we had Shaw Estate and Turnpike estate built by the council for rental to persons on the housing list. They were designed as council houses and had a reasonable build standard and by today's standards a nice long garden. There was never at the time any thought that they would become and would end up being traded as owned homes. The sell off to the tenants at knock down prices is why the councils now need housing stock and the only way they can get it is to force developers to build them.
I'm not sure what the deal is in Parkway but I understood that they would be part share rather than being allocated to single parent Tracy and her child Kylie. Maybe they had wind of the 95% mortgages that we have been promised by the main man to counter the other guys price freeze promise on utilities.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 29 2013, 08:55 PM

And there you have it! These big council estates seemed to be a great idea BUT they essentially divided society. The deserving poor all lived together in one place. Over the years they became stigmatised - just as you've done in your post about the type of tenants in social housing. I was brought up in a council house on a vast estate in Surrey, believe me, the stigma followed you everywhere.