People power forces rethink on housing scheme (From Daily Echo)

So Cllr Williams copnsulted and listened to the opinions of those that matter, the locals, and the Tory Echo tells it as the council being stopped by people power. It would have been great if the last lot had consulted and listened, we might still have a youth centre in Swaythl;ing and the Flower Roads Community Centre, both sold off to finance the Sea City Mausoleum.

Councillor Williams how about all that green space around where you live.
No more private sector housing on council land, make all homes built on council land council homes. stop this selling of council assets to the private sector.

Cllr Williams was a little confused as to how he came up with the idea, initially he said it was in a "vision" he had while coming down Lordshill Way and then he contradicted himself by saying Barratt homes approached him to see if the council had any other areas that they would like developed.
He claimed that the plans were done free of charge, one resident at the meeting pointed out that having worked for Barratt they dont do anything for free. The plans said that the this was a first phase with a second to follow building on yet more green field sites. Cllr Williams calls green fields and woodland "dead land" but what he really meant was it wasnt making a profit for the council.

Although this is one of the many U turns done by NuLabour’s Dear Leader Cllr. Williams during his short period in power, for a change it is rare good news for areas of Lordshill and Lordswood.

This well deserved egg delivered by the people in the face of NuLabourite puppets of big business who have hijacked what used to be party of ordinary people and workers could encourage people of Southampton to stand up to these Thatcherised bullies of on many other issues like ruthless cuts and waste of public money on Dear Leader’s favourite projects and for feeding his unfit for the purpose lap dogs in his cabinet.

The idiotic idea of grabbing even the green verges on the sides of roads may have come from some big firm. But what on the earth the local NuLabourites were thinking when they decided to adopt it?..... If they were really interested in protecting the environment then why could they not tell people behind these proposals that environment is important and green verges on the side of roads in Southampton are not for sale?

Some better informed than me contributors on this site may shed some light on rumours that NuLabour’s local Dear Leader was in fact so keen on this idea that he had even presented to delegates of his party at their national leadership controlled bash, to which they still call conference but what delegates can say is strictly controlled.

If that is true then it only proves that Dear Leader as usual is misleading once again, because he was more than merely passing on somebody else’s proposal to residents, while in fact he was in fact pimping it on behalf of a super rich firm i.e. typical NuLabour ignoring those who vote them but burry heads in the back side of big business while ignoring the local small employers and enterprises.

One wonders how much less investment in the BASIC maintenance of Lordswood/Lordshill will get now the Cllr has been told to take his "vision" or proposal away. I expect the area will continue to remain unmaintained by the council with massive potholes and footpaths crumbling. Happy to take the residents council tax but do we see a return on it, NO!!!

southy wrote:
Councillor Williams how about all that green space around where you live.
No more private sector housing on council land, make all homes built on council land council homes. stop this selling of council assets to the private sector.

Pete, as I posted other day, the posh area of Highfield where NuLabour's unfit for the purpose Dear Leader Cllr. Williams and their former dispicable right winger leader John Arnold live is protected from various developments.

They obviously have one rule for areas where they live and completely different for where most of people who voted them live.

Deep down in their hearts they are true blue Tories, they only feel comfortable living in Tory or sugar coated Conservatives Lib-Dem areas. They think living within the working class communities who vote for them is below their dignity.

We need 2 more cities the size of Birmingham by 2050 and yet we cant even build 118 homes. Pathetic.
What I cannot understand is where all the residents in Lordswood who are having children expect them to live when they leave home.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:
Councillor Williams how about all that green space around where you live.
No more private sector housing on council land, make all homes built on council land council homes. stop this selling of council assets to the private sector.

Pete, as I posted other day, the posh area of Highfield where NuLabour's unfit for the purpose Dear Leader Cllr. Williams and their former dispicable right winger leader John Arnold live is protected from various developments.

They obviously have one rule for areas where they live and completely different for where most of people who voted them live.

Deep down in their hearts they are true blue Tories, they only feel comfortable living in Tory or sugar coated Conservatives Lib-Dem areas. They think living within the working class communities who vote for them is below their dignity.

Don't forget that Councillor williams is an Estate Agent.

Build on the Oaklands School site,
build on the former Ordnance survey site
further afield,
build on the Romsey Brewery site (empty for 25 years)
there are LOTS of sites that are brownfield
but the developers make a bigger margin when they build on greenfield

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:
Councillor Williams how about all that green space around where you live.
No more private sector housing on council land, make all homes built on council land council homes. stop this selling of council assets to the private sector.

Pete, as I posted other day, the posh area of Highfield where NuLabour's unfit for the purpose Dear Leader Cllr. Williams and their former dispicable right winger leader John Arnold live is protected from various developments.

They obviously have one rule for areas where they live and completely different for where most of people who voted them live.

Deep down in their hearts they are true blue Tories, they only feel comfortable living in Tory or sugar coated Conservatives Lib-Dem areas. They think living within the working class communities who vote for them is below their dignity.

Don't forget that Councillor williams is an Estate Agent.

Are you sure?

I think he has financial interests in few houses which are let to tenants, but as his main profession he is in some kind of IT business. Apparently he is exceptionally good at that so very successful.

You can always check his financial interests in members register of interests.

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:
Councillor Williams how about all that green space around where you live.
No more private sector housing on council land, make all homes built on council land council homes. stop this selling of council assets to the private sector.

Pete, as I posted other day, the posh area of Highfield where NuLabour's unfit for the purpose Dear Leader Cllr. Williams and their former dispicable right winger leader John Arnold live is protected from various developments.

They obviously have one rule for areas where they live and completely different for where most of people who voted them live.

Deep down in their hearts they are true blue Tories, they only feel comfortable living in Tory or sugar coated Conservatives Lib-Dem areas. They think living within the working class communities who vote for them is below their dignity.

Don't forget that Councillor williams is an Estate Agent.

No he isn't you Cretin.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Although this is one of the many U turns done by NuLabour’s Dear Leader Cllr. Williams during his short period in power, for a change it is rare good news for areas of Lordshill and Lordswood.

This well deserved egg delivered by the people in the face of NuLabourite puppets of big business who have hijacked what used to be party of ordinary people and workers could encourage people of Southampton to stand up to these Thatcherised bullies of on many other issues like ruthless cuts and waste of public money on Dear Leader’s favourite projects and for feeding his unfit for the purpose lap dogs in his cabinet.

The idiotic idea of grabbing even the green verges on the sides of roads may have come from some big firm. But what on the earth the local NuLabourites were thinking when they decided to adopt it?..... If they were really interested in protecting the environment then why could they not tell people behind these proposals that environment is important and green verges on the side of roads in Southampton are not for sale?

Some better informed than me contributors on this site may shed some light on rumours that NuLabour’s local Dear Leader was in fact so keen on this idea that he had even presented to delegates of his party at their national leadership controlled bash, to which they still call conference but what delegates can say is strictly controlled.

If that is true then it only proves that Dear Leader as usual is misleading once again, because he was more than merely passing on somebody else’s proposal to residents, while in fact he was in fact pimping it on behalf of a super rich firm i.e. typical NuLabour ignoring those who vote them but burry heads in the back side of big business while ignoring the local small employers and enterprises.

I see you are as bad as misrepresenting consultation as the Toty's Echo. It's the Tories who do not consult, it's Labour that consulted and listened. Perhaps if the likes of you listened there would not be so much cr4p posted on this site.

Surely some nice new shinny buildings would make a awful are look a little nicer!

We have a growing need for more homes, a proposal is made, local people point out what is wrong with it, the proposal is withdrawn.

It seem to me that this is politics at it's best.

I just wish that some of the posters here put half as much energy into arguing for more rented housing in the city as they do into gloating that a plan for some has been stopped.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this idea (and as I don't live in Lordshill I make no comment on that) the growing homelessness problem is not going to go away.

housewife wrote:
Build on the Oaklands School site,
build on the former Ordnance survey site
further afield,
build on the Romsey Brewery site (empty for 25 years)
there are LOTS of sites that are brownfield
but the developers make a bigger margin when they build on greenfield

True.

There is also plenty of land behind big house of Cllr. Williams own house.

But people around that area won't like to build on 'brown field' land on the back of their houses where they have shared tennis courts etc which they want to keep for their kids while perfectly happy selling the playing fields on which other people's children depend upon, or few bit of green grass on sides of road like they tried to do in this case.

southy wrote:
Councillor Williams how about all that green space around where you live.
No more private sector housing on council land, make all homes built on council land council homes. stop this selling of council assets to the private sector.

We need money to build council homes which this government, like the last, is not being helpful in allowing the council to borrow. So it's not the council of whichever party to blame for the shortage of social housing, it's central government. The Labour party has now woken up to reality and would like to see more social home building but the current shower in power are only interested in the income of their rich property owning party donors.

bigfella777 wrote:
We need 2 more cities the size of Birmingham by 2050 and yet we cant even build 118 homes. Pathetic.
What I cannot understand is where all the residents in Lordswood who are having children expect them to live when they leave home.

You expect them to leave home!!!

Now back the other south coast councils that are implementing a 'no eviction' policy regarding the aptly named 'BEDROOM TAX' well done to the other councils that have seen sense. I await Southampton's response with baited breath!

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

housewife wrote:
Build on the Oaklands School site,
build on the former Ordnance survey site
further afield,
build on the Romsey Brewery site (empty for 25 years)
there are LOTS of sites that are brownfield
but the developers make a bigger margin when they build on greenfield

True.

There is also plenty of land behind big house of Cllr. Williams own house.

But people around that area won't like to build on 'brown field' land on the back of their houses where they have shared tennis courts etc which they want to keep for their kids while perfectly happy selling the playing fields on which other people's children depend upon, or few bit of green grass on sides of road like they tried to do in this case.

Brown field tennis courts? Surely not.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

southy wrote:
Councillor Williams how about all that green space around where you live.
No more private sector housing on council land, make all homes built on council land council homes. stop this selling of council assets to the private sector.

Pete, as I posted other day, the posh area of Highfield where NuLabour's unfit for the purpose Dear Leader Cllr. Williams and their former dispicable right winger leader John Arnold live is protected from various developments.

They obviously have one rule for areas where they live and completely different for where most of people who voted them live.

Deep down in their hearts they are true blue Tories, they only feel comfortable living in Tory or sugar coated Conservatives Lib-Dem areas. They think living within the working class communities who vote for them is below their dignity.

Don't forget that Councillor williams is an Estate Agent.

Are you sure?

I think he has financial interests in few houses which are let to tenants, but as his main profession he is in some kind of IT business. Apparently he is exceptionally good at that so very successful.

You can always check his financial interests in members register of interests.

Will do later, it was what I got told 2 years ago, but I do not know in what compasstity, he might own a the business he might be just a worker in the business, or he could be like you say an IT with in a estate agents

Inform Al wrote:

southy wrote:
Councillor Williams how about all that green space around where you live.
No more private sector housing on council land, make all homes built on council land council homes. stop this selling of council assets to the private sector.

We need money to build council homes which this government, like the last, is not being helpful in allowing the council to borrow. So it's not the council of whichever party to blame for the shortage of social housing, it's central government. The Labour party has now woken up to reality and would like to see more social home building but the current shower in power are only interested in the income of their rich property owning party donors.

Building Council homes pay for them selfs, councils can borrow but there is a limit to how much they can borrow, i think its around the 22 million mark, it might be more than that but Royston borrowed 5 million for that white elephant.
What is stopping the councils from building council homes is the government, councils have got to ask for permission to build council homes, The last Labour Government change the rules from Thatcher policy of stopping any council homes building to make up for the short fall of homes that been sold and to keep inline with the waiting list, to councils must ask for permission to build homes.
What this council needs to do is ask for permission and the goverment will put a limit on how many council home to be built, if the goverment gives permission then that leaves this council able to borrow money that is needed to build those homes.

Inform Al wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Although this is one of the many U turns done by NuLabour’s Dear Leader Cllr. Williams during his short period in power, for a change it is rare good news for areas of Lordshill and Lordswood.

This well deserved egg delivered by the people in the face of NuLabourite puppets of big business who have hijacked what used to be party of ordinary people and workers could encourage people of Southampton to stand up to these Thatcherised bullies of on many other issues like ruthless cuts and waste of public money on Dear Leader’s favourite projects and for feeding his unfit for the purpose lap dogs in his cabinet.

The idiotic idea of grabbing even the green verges on the sides of roads may have come from some big firm. But what on the earth the local NuLabourites were thinking when they decided to adopt it?..... If they were really interested in protecting the environment then why could they not tell people behind these proposals that environment is important and green verges on the side of roads in Southampton are not for sale?

Some better informed than me contributors on this site may shed some light on rumours that NuLabour’s local Dear Leader was in fact so keen on this idea that he had even presented to delegates of his party at their national leadership controlled bash, to which they still call conference but what delegates can say is strictly controlled.

If that is true then it only proves that Dear Leader as usual is misleading once again, because he was more than merely passing on somebody else’s proposal to residents, while in fact he was in fact pimping it on behalf of a super rich firm i.e. typical NuLabour ignoring those who vote them but burry heads in the back side of big business while ignoring the local small employers and enterprises.

I see you are as bad as misrepresenting consultation as the Toty's Echo. It's the Tories who do not consult, it's Labour that consulted and listened. Perhaps if the likes of you listened there would not be so much cr4p posted on this site.

If they really wanted to consult the Council or the NuLabour Party itself would have arranged this meeting.

Fact: This meeting was arranged by The Lordswood Residents Association Committee. It was they who paid for and delivered the leaflets in the area.

This is different from when The Labour run council under Alan Whitehead’s leadership actually consulted the people.

When they dealt with proposals to build university on Lordswood forest and Saints stadium on Five Acres site. Meeting in Oaklands was arranged by the Council, because more people turned up than the theatre could cope another meeting was arranged in the University.

Also unlike Dear Leader Cllr. Williams under Alan Whitehead local councillors of his party (I was one of them) were allowed to openly speak for people of the area.

I am mindful of very genuine concern you have expressed on this site about what happened to the community/youth centre in Swaythling. I do share your disgust with last Council’s decision, because at one time I was member of the Labour run Council which spent money on it, and I at that time as Chair of Portswood Subdivision’s Police Liaison Committee identified it as important need for Swaythling area, just as Superintendent Peter Manns also wrote in that centre’s favour.

So Tories demolishing it is also great disappoint to me.

But why did you not run a campaign like community in Lordswood and Lordshill has done? Why did you not elect councillors like Don Thomas and Keith Morrell who are willing to stand up and get counted for people who voted for them? Had your area been using votes properly by refusing to elect Lib-Dems and Tories the situation may have been very different.

Wow!! Do you guys feel the chill? Hell just froze over; Southy has admitted he might have blundered. There is hope for mankind yet.

southy wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

southy wrote:
Councillor Williams how about all that green space around where you live.
No more private sector housing on council land, make all homes built on council land council homes. stop this selling of council assets to the private sector.

We need money to build council homes which this government, like the last, is not being helpful in allowing the council to borrow. So it's not the council of whichever party to blame for the shortage of social housing, it's central government. The Labour party has now woken up to reality and would like to see more social home building but the current shower in power are only interested in the income of their rich property owning party donors.

Building Council homes pay for them selfs, councils can borrow but there is a limit to how much they can borrow, i think its around the 22 million mark, it might be more than that but Royston borrowed 5 million for that white elephant.
What is stopping the councils from building council homes is the government, councils have got to ask for permission to build council homes, The last Labour Government change the rules from Thatcher policy of stopping any council homes building to make up for the short fall of homes that been sold and to keep inline with the waiting list, to councils must ask for permission to build homes.
What this council needs to do is ask for permission and the goverment will put a limit on how many council home to be built, if the goverment gives permission then that leaves this council able to borrow money that is needed to build those homes.

Any chance of that in English?

I do not care where Cllr Williams lives.
But I DO KNOW that brownfield sites should be developed before greenfield ones.

HillsidePaul wrote:
We have a growing need for more homes, a proposal is made, local people point out what is wrong with it, the proposal is withdrawn.

It seem to me that this is politics at it's best.

I just wish that some of the posters here put half as much energy into arguing for more rented housing in the city as they do into gloating that a plan for some has been stopped.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this idea (and as I don't live in Lordshill I make no comment on that) the growing homelessness problem is not going to go away.

HillsidePaul, you are spot on.

Yes we need more decent homes preferably either privately owned or 'Council houses'. I will be shocked if you will support private landlords most of whom are vicious sharks. So please do not try to give me heart attack even as a joke!

But where those houses and what kind of houses are built should be carefully considered. This proposal was virtually land grabbing of few green areas next to a very busy road. How could the Dear Leader and the Group under him have entertained this idea in the first place? It only proves that while Williams may be very good in his own profession he is completely out of his depth as Leader of the Council.

Real problem with NuLabour in Southampton is that as Leader of Labour Group and the Council Alan Whitehead set a very high standard and now the thatcherised party has not that kind of commitment and can't find anybody as leader with Alan's calibre.

Inform Al wrote:
So Cllr Williams copnsulted and listened to the opinions of those that matter, the locals, and the Tory Echo tells it as the council being stopped by people power. It would have been great if the last lot had consulted and listened, we might still have a youth centre in Swaythl;ing and the Flower Roads Community Centre, both sold off to finance the Sea City Mausoleum.

Spot on! The merits of these proposals were clearly debatable and the Council have carried out a consultation process and listened to public opinion.
The last administration didn't listen full stop and went ahead regardless to meet their own agendas. The result last May demonstrates how far that pig headedness got them.
Richard Williams may not be everyone's cup of tea but at least this administration is learning from the mistakes of the last one.

Well done to the people of Lordswood and Lordshill for stopping this outrageous scheme!!

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

HillsidePaul wrote:
We have a growing need for more homes, a proposal is made, local people point out what is wrong with it, the proposal is withdrawn.

It seem to me that this is politics at it's best.

I just wish that some of the posters here put half as much energy into arguing for more rented housing in the city as they do into gloating that a plan for some has been stopped.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this idea (and as I don't live in Lordshill I make no comment on that) the growing homelessness problem is not going to go away.

HillsidePaul, you are spot on.

Yes we need more decent homes preferably either privately owned or 'Council houses'. I will be shocked if you will support private landlords most of whom are vicious sharks. So please do not try to give me heart attack even as a joke!

But where those houses and what kind of houses are built should be carefully considered. This proposal was virtually land grabbing of few green areas next to a very busy road. How could the Dear Leader and the Group under him have entertained this idea in the first place? It only proves that while Williams may be very good in his own profession he is completely out of his depth as Leader of the Council.

Real problem with NuLabour in Southampton is that as Leader of Labour Group and the Council Alan Whitehead set a very high standard and now the thatcherised party has not that kind of commitment and can't find anybody as leader with Alan's calibre.

Do you want to read your rant back Paramjit? " preferably either privately owned or 'Council houses"? What other options are there? Your references to "Dear Leader" are now nothing more than boring and your use of the term "thatcherised" is so predictable that it has lost any impact that it (may) have ever had.
If you are determined to stay in the political arena when you are so obviously past your sell by date perhaps you should consider finding yourself a spin doctor. Southy tells some great lies....opps, sorry, tales so perhaps you could consider him.

So in an area where Labours vote is split suddenly Williams would have you believe he listened to you?
Does anyone with a brain believe Barrats approached him?
Does anyone with a brain think this/these sites were the real proposed site to build mini estates?
Labour before the election said 1,500 new council homes would be built how many so far have been built?
there were plans to build all across 5Acres by SEEDA by putting Oasis school in one corner this was halted. now we have two school sites where on at least one site promises were made on what could be built on it( Millbrook)
Oaklands was part of the Lordshill master plan but Sainsbury's pulled out of it.the school could be used for community activities but Labour want to spend half a million to demolish it why?
the public complained then this crazy plan for Lordshill way emerged & suddenly the public is saying build homes/flats on Oaklands site what a great job of engineering a situation where you get what you wanted in the first place by Williams.
The best bit is he can now say "The public wanted it so I gave it to them" lambs to the slaughter comes to mind

Latest football scores
Saints 3-1 Liverpool
Labour 0- 200 People( including Tories)

JPM is a Troll

loosehead wrote:
So in an area where Labours vote is split suddenly Williams would have you believe he listened to you?
Does anyone with a brain believe Barrats approached him?
Does anyone with a brain think this/these sites were the real proposed site to build mini estates?
Labour before the election said 1,500 new council homes would be built how many so far have been built?
there were plans to build all across 5Acres by SEEDA by putting Oasis school in one corner this was halted. now we have two school sites where on at least one site promises were made on what could be built on it( Millbrook)
Oaklands was part of the Lordshill master plan but Sainsbury's pulled out of it.the school could be used for community activities but Labour want to spend half a million to demolish it why?
the public complained then this crazy plan for Lordshill way emerged & suddenly the public is saying build homes/flats on Oaklands site what a great job of engineering a situation where you get what you wanted in the first place by Williams.
The best bit is he can now say "The public wanted it so I gave it to them" lambs to the slaughter comes to mind

Millbrook can not be built on till the sports lease as ran out, peronally my self it should be returned back and used as a state school

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Although this is one of the many U turns done by NuLabour’s Dear Leader Cllr. Williams during his short period in power, for a change it is rare good news for areas of Lordshill and Lordswood.

This well deserved egg delivered by the people in the face of NuLabourite puppets of big business who have hijacked what used to be party of ordinary people and workers could encourage people of Southampton to stand up to these Thatcherised bullies of on many other issues like ruthless cuts and waste of public money on Dear Leader’s favourite projects and for feeding his unfit for the purpose lap dogs in his cabinet.

The idiotic idea of grabbing even the green verges on the sides of roads may have come from some big firm. But what on the earth the local NuLabourites were thinking when they decided to adopt it?..... If they were really interested in protecting the environment then why could they not tell people behind these proposals that environment is important and green verges on the side of roads in Southampton are not for sale?

Some better informed than me contributors on this site may shed some light on rumours that NuLabour’s local Dear Leader was in fact so keen on this idea that he had even presented to delegates of his party at their national leadership controlled bash, to which they still call conference but what delegates can say is strictly controlled.

If that is true then it only proves that Dear Leader as usual is misleading once again, because he was more than merely passing on somebody else’s proposal to residents, while in fact he was in fact pimping it on behalf of a super rich firm i.e. typical NuLabour ignoring those who vote them but burry heads in the back side of big business while ignoring the local small employers and enterprises.

I see you are as bad as misrepresenting consultation as the Toty's Echo. It's the Tories who do not consult, it's Labour that consulted and listened. Perhaps if the likes of you listened there would not be so much cr4p posted on this site.

If they really wanted to consult the Council or the NuLabour Party itself would have arranged this meeting.

Fact: This meeting was arranged by The Lordswood Residents Association Committee. It was they who paid for and delivered the leaflets in the area.

This is different from when The Labour run council under Alan Whitehead’s leadership actually consulted the people.

When they dealt with proposals to build university on Lordswood forest and Saints stadium on Five Acres site. Meeting in Oaklands was arranged by the Council, because more people turned up than the theatre could cope another meeting was arranged in the University.

Also unlike Dear Leader Cllr. Williams under Alan Whitehead local councillors of his party (I was one of them) were allowed to openly speak for people of the area.

I am mindful of very genuine concern you have expressed on this site about what happened to the community/youth centre in Swaythling. I do share your disgust with last Council’s decision, because at one time I was member of the Labour run Council which spent money on it, and I at that time as Chair of Portswood Subdivision’s Police Liaison Committee identified it as important need for Swaythling area, just as Superintendent Peter Manns also wrote in that centre’s favour.

So Tories demolishing it is also great disappoint to me.

But why did you not run a campaign like community in Lordswood and Lordshill has done? Why did you not elect councillors like Don Thomas and Keith Morrell who are willing to stand up and get counted for people who voted for them? Had your area been using votes properly by refusing to elect Lib-Dems and Tories the situation may have been very different.

Can't be bothered to read all this useless boringly long rant, fact is the council, as they are in Townhill Park, organised groups to debate the issue. then listened. Please try to get real, hopefully with fewer words.

SteveParsons wrote:
One wonders how much less investment in the BASIC maintenance of Lordswood/Lordshill will get now the Cllr has been told to take his "vision" or proposal away. I expect the area will continue to remain unmaintained by the council with massive potholes and footpaths crumbling. Happy to take the residents council tax but do we see a return on it, NO!!!

FYI ..... There is a sign up in Woburn that states "Work starts here for 1 week from 19/3/2013".
.
Perhaps there will be some return on your council tax

housewife wrote:
Build on the Oaklands School site,
build on the former Ordnance survey site
further afield,
build on the Romsey Brewery site (empty for 25 years)
there are LOTS of sites that are brownfield
but the developers make a bigger margin when they build on greenfield

OS site is being built on.
.
Romsey Brewery is being built on ..... But comes under Test Valley ... Not Southampton.
.

Stillness wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

HillsidePaul wrote:
We have a growing need for more homes, a proposal is made, local people point out what is wrong with it, the proposal is withdrawn.

It seem to me that this is politics at it's best.

I just wish that some of the posters here put half as much energy into arguing for more rented housing in the city as they do into gloating that a plan for some has been stopped.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this idea (and as I don't live in Lordshill I make no comment on that) the growing homelessness problem is not going to go away.

HillsidePaul, you are spot on.

Yes we need more decent homes preferably either privately owned or 'Council houses'. I will be shocked if you will support private landlords most of whom are vicious sharks. So please do not try to give me heart attack even as a joke!

But where those houses and what kind of houses are built should be carefully considered. This proposal was virtually land grabbing of few green areas next to a very busy road. How could the Dear Leader and the Group under him have entertained this idea in the first place? It only proves that while Williams may be very good in his own profession he is completely out of his depth as Leader of the Council.

Real problem with NuLabour in Southampton is that as Leader of Labour Group and the Council Alan Whitehead set a very high standard and now the thatcherised party has not that kind of commitment and can't find anybody as leader with Alan's calibre.

Do you want to read your rant back Paramjit? " preferably either privately owned or 'Council houses"? What other options are there? Your references to "Dear Leader" are now nothing more than boring and your use of the term "thatcherised" is so predictable that it has lost any impact that it (may) have ever had.
If you are determined to stay in the political arena when you are so obviously past your sell by date perhaps you should consider finding yourself a spin doctor. Southy tells some great lies....opps, sorry, tales so perhaps you could consider him.

Southy spin doctor???

His medicine will probably be too bitter!!!

Inform Al wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Although this is one of the many U turns done by NuLabour’s Dear Leader Cllr. Williams during his short period in power, for a change it is rare good news for areas of Lordshill and Lordswood.

This well deserved egg delivered by the people in the face of NuLabourite puppets of big business who have hijacked what used to be party of ordinary people and workers could encourage people of Southampton to stand up to these Thatcherised bullies of on many other issues like ruthless cuts and waste of public money on Dear Leader’s favourite projects and for feeding his unfit for the purpose lap dogs in his cabinet.

The idiotic idea of grabbing even the green verges on the sides of roads may have come from some big firm. But what on the earth the local NuLabourites were thinking when they decided to adopt it?..... If they were really interested in protecting the environment then why could they not tell people behind these proposals that environment is important and green verges on the side of roads in Southampton are not for sale?

Some better informed than me contributors on this site may shed some light on rumours that NuLabour’s local Dear Leader was in fact so keen on this idea that he had even presented to delegates of his party at their national leadership controlled bash, to which they still call conference but what delegates can say is strictly controlled.

If that is true then it only proves that Dear Leader as usual is misleading once again, because he was more than merely passing on somebody else’s proposal to residents, while in fact he was in fact pimping it on behalf of a super rich firm i.e. typical NuLabour ignoring those who vote them but burry heads in the back side of big business while ignoring the local small employers and enterprises.

I see you are as bad as misrepresenting consultation as the Toty's Echo. It's the Tories who do not consult, it's Labour that consulted and listened. Perhaps if the likes of you listened there would not be so much cr4p posted on this site.

If they really wanted to consult the Council or the NuLabour Party itself would have arranged this meeting.

Fact: This meeting was arranged by The Lordswood Residents Association Committee. It was they who paid for and delivered the leaflets in the area.


This is different from when The Labour run council under Alan Whitehead’s leadership actually consulted the people.

When they dealt with proposals to build university on Lordswood forest and Saints stadium on Five Acres site. Meeting in Oaklands was arranged by the Council, because more people turned up than the theatre could cope another meeting was arranged in the University.

Also unlike Dear Leader Cllr. Williams under Alan Whitehead local councillors of his party (I was one of them) were allowed to openly speak for people of the area.

I am mindful of very genuine concern you have expressed on this site about what happened to the community/youth centre in Swaythling. I do share your disgust with last Council’s decision, because at one time I was member of the Labour run Council which spent money on it, and I at that time as Chair of Portswood Subdivision’s Police Liaison Committee identified it as important need for Swaythling area, just as Superintendent Peter Manns also wrote in that centre’s favour.

So Tories demolishing it is also great disappoint to me.

But why did you not run a campaign like community in Lordswood and Lordshill has done? Why did you not elect councillors like Don Thomas and Keith Morrell who are willing to stand up and get counted for people who voted for them? Had your area been using votes properly by refusing to elect Lib-Dems and Tories the situation may have been very different.

Can't be bothered to read all this useless boringly long rant, fact is the council, as they are in Townhill Park, organised groups to debate the issue. then listened. Please try to get real, hopefully with fewer words.

Nobody ever forces you to read, do they?

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Stillness wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

HillsidePaul wrote:
We have a growing need for more homes, a proposal is made, local people point out what is wrong with it, the proposal is withdrawn.

It seem to me that this is politics at it's best.

I just wish that some of the posters here put half as much energy into arguing for more rented housing in the city as they do into gloating that a plan for some has been stopped.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this idea (and as I don't live in Lordshill I make no comment on that) the growing homelessness problem is not going to go away.

HillsidePaul, you are spot on.

Yes we need more decent homes preferably either privately owned or 'Council houses'. I will be shocked if you will support private landlords most of whom are vicious sharks. So please do not try to give me heart attack even as a joke!

But where those houses and what kind of houses are built should be carefully considered. This proposal was virtually land grabbing of few green areas next to a very busy road. How could the Dear Leader and the Group under him have entertained this idea in the first place? It only proves that while Williams may be very good in his own profession he is completely out of his depth as Leader of the Council.

Real problem with NuLabour in Southampton is that as Leader of Labour Group and the Council Alan Whitehead set a very high standard and now the thatcherised party has not that kind of commitment and can't find anybody as leader with Alan's calibre.

Do you want to read your rant back Paramjit? " preferably either privately owned or 'Council houses"? What other options are there? Your references to "Dear Leader" are now nothing more than boring and your use of the term "thatcherised" is so predictable that it has lost any impact that it (may) have ever had.
If you are determined to stay in the political arena when you are so obviously past your sell by date perhaps you should consider finding yourself a spin doctor. Southy tells some great lies....opps, sorry, tales so perhaps you could consider him.

Southy spin doctor???

His medicine will probably be too bitter!!!

The bitterest pill is hard to swallow. That would make a good song title....Oh...Too late.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

SteveParsons wrote:
One wonders how much less investment in the BASIC maintenance of Lordswood/Lordshill will get now the Cllr has been told to take his "vision" or proposal away. I expect the area will continue to remain unmaintained by the council with massive potholes and footpaths crumbling. Happy to take the residents council tax but do we see a return on it, NO!!!

FYI ..... There is a sign up in Woburn that states "Work starts here for 1 week from 19/3/2013".
.
Perhaps there will be some return on your council tax

Very doubtful Lone Ranger, in some places on Woburn road there are crater sized potholes that the council kindly drew around and left for months for them to get worse. Just a few street lights across Southampton is not a genuine investment. Its done via the PPI scheme, so will end up costing far more. Lordswood and Lordshill residents have lacked investment for years under all different administrations (red and Blue). All political parties are guilty of wasting the council tax and not investing it in where the tax comes from. Always the same, investing in pipe dreams (visions in Cllr Williams case) and making the city into a mammoth shopping mall with no soul.

As many people have pointed out, we as a country need more housing, and the best way to get it is to build more houses.
Asking/listening to local people, who by default must already have houses, is ridiculous. There are people who know about town planning that are much better informed to make these kind of decisions than Fat Dave from number 12 and Old Granny Smith from the flats over the road. And FFS, if I have to hear "increased traffic" as a reason for not building houses one more time............

More and more people are breeding, more people are coming from overseas. I'd love to see how we will house the future children when they become adults. It will be very interesting.

Where does this idea that Labour consulted with Townhill Park residents come from?
The Tory council had a group of residents looking at the plans & pointed to bits they liked & disliked then a scale model was exhibited then with all the residents happy Labour won power & stopped the development.
then they decided to have far more built a copse the residents wanted to keep was to be cleared & they were going to buy back from the housing association some of the properties with £50million more than the tories were going to spend?
The Residents kicked up about it & Labour knew they had to listen after all that's the side of the city Williams is standing for Parliament so he needs their votes.
Did the Copse stay?did the road no one wanted get taken out of the plans?
As with Townhill Labour never consulted & please don't make me laugh & say Barrats approached Williams.
Little by Little the people of this city are realising what a mistake it was to vote Labour into power so keep it up & let's get rid of Labour MP's & Council

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Although this is one of the many U turns done by NuLabour’s Dear Leader Cllr. Williams during his short period in power, for a change it is rare good news for areas of Lordshill and Lordswood.

This well deserved egg delivered by the people in the face of NuLabourite puppets of big business who have hijacked what used to be party of ordinary people and workers could encourage people of Southampton to stand up to these Thatcherised bullies of on many other issues like ruthless cuts and waste of public money on Dear Leader’s favourite projects and for feeding his unfit for the purpose lap dogs in his cabinet.

The idiotic idea of grabbing even the green verges on the sides of roads may have come from some big firm. But what on the earth the local NuLabourites were thinking when they decided to adopt it?..... If they were really interested in protecting the environment then why could they not tell people behind these proposals that environment is important and green verges on the side of roads in Southampton are not for sale?

Some better informed than me contributors on this site may shed some light on rumours that NuLabour’s local Dear Leader was in fact so keen on this idea that he had even presented to delegates of his party at their national leadership controlled bash, to which they still call conference but what delegates can say is strictly controlled.

If that is true then it only proves that Dear Leader as usual is misleading once again, because he was more than merely passing on somebody else’s proposal to residents, while in fact he was in fact pimping it on behalf of a super rich firm i.e. typical NuLabour ignoring those who vote them but burry heads in the back side of big business while ignoring the local small employers and enterprises.

I see you are as bad as misrepresenting consultation as the Toty's Echo. It's the Tories who do not consult, it's Labour that consulted and listened. Perhaps if the likes of you listened there would not be so much cr4p posted on this site.

If they really wanted to consult the Council or the NuLabour Party itself would have arranged this meeting.

Fact: This meeting was arranged by The Lordswood Residents Association Committee. It was they who paid for and delivered the leaflets in the area.


This is different from when The Labour run council under Alan Whitehead’s leadership actually consulted the people.

When they dealt with proposals to build university on Lordswood forest and Saints stadium on Five Acres site. Meeting in Oaklands was arranged by the Council, because more people turned up than the theatre could cope another meeting was arranged in the University.

Also unlike Dear Leader Cllr. Williams under Alan Whitehead local councillors of his party (I was one of them) were allowed to openly speak for people of the area.

I am mindful of very genuine concern you have expressed on this site about what happened to the community/youth centre in Swaythling. I do share your disgust with last Council’s decision, because at one time I was member of the Labour run Council which spent money on it, and I at that time as Chair of Portswood Subdivision’s Police Liaison Committee identified it as important need for Swaythling area, just as Superintendent Peter Manns also wrote in that centre’s favour.

So Tories demolishing it is also great disappoint to me.

But why did you not run a campaign like community in Lordswood and Lordshill has done? Why did you not elect councillors like Don Thomas and Keith Morrell who are willing to stand up and get counted for people who voted for them? Had your area been using votes properly by refusing to elect Lib-Dems and Tories the situation may have been very different.

Can't be bothered to read all this useless boringly long rant, fact is the council, as they are in Townhill Park, organised groups to debate the issue. then listened. Please try to get real, hopefully with fewer words.

Nobody ever forces you to read, do they?

Which is why I don't

loosehead wrote:
Where does this idea that Labour consulted with Townhill Park residents come from?
The Tory council had a group of residents looking at the plans & pointed to bits they liked & disliked then a scale model was exhibited then with all the residents happy Labour won power & stopped the development.
then they decided to have far more built a copse the residents wanted to keep was to be cleared & they were going to buy back from the housing association some of the properties with £50million more than the tories were going to spend?
The Residents kicked up about it & Labour knew they had to listen after all that's the side of the city Williams is standing for Parliament so he needs their votes.
Did the Copse stay?did the road no one wanted get taken out of the plans?
As with Townhill Labour never consulted & please don't make me laugh & say Barrats approached Williams.
Little by Little the people of this city are realising what a mistake it was to vote Labour into power so keep it up & let's get rid of Labour MP's & Council

As some who has taken an interest in the scheme from day one, and was totally peed off that tw4t Baillie wanted to sell off HRA property cheaply, I and most of the locals consulted were pleased at the changes instituted by Cllr Payne that meant the HRA would retain its own property. The original Tory consultation was in the process of being ignored when Labour fortunately for this scheme took the reins. Please try not to be taken in by your party of choices propaganda.

Wot we want is a couple of thousand one bedroom apartments to cater for the displaced bedroom "tax" victims.

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Where does this idea that Labour consulted with Townhill Park residents come from?
The Tory council had a group of residents looking at the plans & pointed to bits they liked & disliked then a scale model was exhibited then with all the residents happy Labour won power & stopped the development.
then they decided to have far more built a copse the residents wanted to keep was to be cleared & they were going to buy back from the housing association some of the properties with £50million more than the tories were going to spend?
The Residents kicked up about it & Labour knew they had to listen after all that's the side of the city Williams is standing for Parliament so he needs their votes.
Did the Copse stay?did the road no one wanted get taken out of the plans?
As with Townhill Labour never consulted & please don't make me laugh & say Barrats approached Williams.
Little by Little the people of this city are realising what a mistake it was to vote Labour into power so keep it up & let's get rid of Labour MP's & Council

As some who has taken an interest in the scheme from day one, and was totally peed off that tw4t Baillie wanted to sell off HRA property cheaply, I and most of the locals consulted were pleased at the changes instituted by Cllr Payne that meant the HRA would retain its own property. The original Tory consultation was in the process of being ignored when Labour fortunately for this scheme took the reins. Please try not to be taken in by your party of choices propaganda.

So exactly where do you live? is it Swaythling which you berate the Tories over? Is it Vaundry close? or is it Townhill Park?
What should have happened on Townhill park was the flats demolished & houses with enough space to swing a cat in were built for families not like the Labour Idea of lordshill which is the most concentrated housing in the country.
In London they started to clear blocks of flats & Tower blocks & started to build houses as it was a proven fact that areas with high concentrations of flats have far more anti social behaviour than estates with good old houses on it

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Where does this idea that Labour consulted with Townhill Park residents come from?
The Tory council had a group of residents looking at the plans & pointed to bits they liked & disliked then a scale model was exhibited then with all the residents happy Labour won power & stopped the development.
then they decided to have far more built a copse the residents wanted to keep was to be cleared & they were going to buy back from the housing association some of the properties with £50million more than the tories were going to spend?
The Residents kicked up about it & Labour knew they had to listen after all that's the side of the city Williams is standing for Parliament so he needs their votes.
Did the Copse stay?did the road no one wanted get taken out of the plans?
As with Townhill Labour never consulted & please don't make me laugh & say Barrats approached Williams.
Little by Little the people of this city are realising what a mistake it was to vote Labour into power so keep it up & let's get rid of Labour MP's & Council

As some who has taken an interest in the scheme from day one, and was totally peed off that tw4t Baillie wanted to sell off HRA property cheaply, I and most of the locals consulted were pleased at the changes instituted by Cllr Payne that meant the HRA would retain its own property. The original Tory consultation was in the process of being ignored when Labour fortunately for this scheme took the reins. Please try not to be taken in by your party of choices propaganda.

So exactly where do you live? is it Swaythling which you berate the Tories over? Is it Vaundry close? or is it Townhill Park?
What should have happened on Townhill park was the flats demolished & houses with enough space to swing a cat in were built for families not like the Labour Idea of lordshill which is the most concentrated housing in the country.
In London they started to clear blocks of flats & Tower blocks & started to build houses as it was a proven fact that areas with high concentrations of flats have far more anti social behaviour than estates with good old houses on it

Don't know where you get your 'facts' from but the Westbourne Park Estate in Paddington has seen a massive reduction in crime since I lived there. I moved out in what was in those days called slum clearance when the high rise flats were built. And yes I live in Swaythling, but have for some time now helped locals in Townhill Park so do know what is going on there. As far as Lordhill is concerned, like the leader of the council, I would respect what the locals there have to say. It's called consultation.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Wot we want is a couple of thousand one bedroom apartments to cater for the displaced bedroom "tax" victims.

Not sure that would be enough, there are over 14,000 on the council's housing list but I must admit to not knowing how many of those are for family homes and how many are for individuals.

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Where does this idea that Labour consulted with Townhill Park residents come from?
The Tory council had a group of residents looking at the plans & pointed to bits they liked & disliked then a scale model was exhibited then with all the residents happy Labour won power & stopped the development.
then they decided to have far more built a copse the residents wanted to keep was to be cleared & they were going to buy back from the housing association some of the properties with £50million more than the tories were going to spend?
The Residents kicked up about it & Labour knew they had to listen after all that's the side of the city Williams is standing for Parliament so he needs their votes.
Did the Copse stay?did the road no one wanted get taken out of the plans?
As with Townhill Labour never consulted & please don't make me laugh & say Barrats approached Williams.
Little by Little the people of this city are realising what a mistake it was to vote Labour into power so keep it up & let's get rid of Labour MP's & Council

As some who has taken an interest in the scheme from day one, and was totally peed off that tw4t Baillie wanted to sell off HRA property cheaply, I and most of the locals consulted were pleased at the changes instituted by Cllr Payne that meant the HRA would retain its own property. The original Tory consultation was in the process of being ignored when Labour fortunately for this scheme took the reins. Please try not to be taken in by your party of choices propaganda.

So exactly where do you live? is it Swaythling which you berate the Tories over? Is it Vaundry close? or is it Townhill Park?
What should have happened on Townhill park was the flats demolished & houses with enough space to swing a cat in were built for families not like the Labour Idea of lordshill which is the most concentrated housing in the country.
In London they started to clear blocks of flats & Tower blocks & started to build houses as it was a proven fact that areas with high concentrations of flats have far more anti social behaviour than estates with good old houses on it

Don't know where you get your 'facts' from but the Westbourne Park Estate in Paddington has seen a massive reduction in crime since I lived there. I moved out in what was in those days called slum clearance when the high rise flats were built. And yes I live in Swaythling, but have for some time now helped locals in Townhill Park so do know what is going on there. As far as Lordhill is concerned, like the leader of the council, I would respect what the locals there have to say. It's called consultation.

So since you moved the crime rate has dropped?
Please get your facts right as my sister-in-law lives in London (Tottenham) & she shows me how they're clearing flats & building homes for families or is that concept to much for you to understand?

I wondered if you would remark on the fact that the crime figures dropped after I left London. Whilst I myself would rather live in a house than a flat we have to wake up to reality, with so many people now living in the UK onwaqrds and upwards is going to be the only option for many. As it happens the very high flats on the Westbourne Estate do have a lot of grass around them so design and landscaping may have a lot to do with the residents attitude

Inform Al wrote:
I wondered if you would remark on the fact that the crime figures dropped after I left London. Whilst I myself would rather live in a house than a flat we have to wake up to reality, with so many people now living in the UK onwaqrds and upwards is going to be the only option for many. As it happens the very high flats on the Westbourne Estate do have a lot of grass around them so design and landscaping may have a lot to do with the residents attitude

So chuck out all illegal immigrants, Asylum seekers who travel thousands of miles to get here instead of the nearest safe country. Anyone who's come here as with abu hamza & taught hate against us & get the hell out of the EU.
A few years ago we had a falling birth rate what happened?
A single guy might get a studio flat or stay with parents until middle aged a single woman has a child,.couple of children gets a flat & money until those kids are sixteen none of these things are right but who's brave enough to actually say it in parliament?

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:
I wondered if you would remark on the fact that the crime figures dropped after I left London. Whilst I myself would rather live in a house than a flat we have to wake up to reality, with so many people now living in the UK onwaqrds and upwards is going to be the only option for many. As it happens the very high flats on the Westbourne Estate do have a lot of grass around them so design and landscaping may have a lot to do with the residents attitude

So chuck out all illegal immigrants, Asylum seekers who travel thousands of miles to get here instead of the nearest safe country. Anyone who's come here as with abu hamza & taught hate against us & get the hell out of the EU.
A few years ago we had a falling birth rate what happened?
A single guy might get a studio flat or stay with parents until middle aged a single woman has a child,.couple of children gets a flat & money until those kids are sixteen none of these things are right but who's brave enough to actually say it in parliament?

Inbred cretins actually accuse UKIP of being racist when they try to address these issues.