Thornhill to get £15m regeneration (From Daily Echo)

£50m was allotted to sorting Thornhill out in 2001.

1 - Is this merely part of that £50m, and so not new money, just spin?

2 - If not, what on earth has been done with the £50m?

Why bother wasting money in this area. The buildings will only get defaced by the thugs and cretins that live in Thornhill and further destroy any piecefull living for those who are normal humans.

Pull down the old buildings and turn the area into a cage ring so the low lifes can kick 10 bails of s**t out of each other.

I don't think much of the artist's impression; that car still has wheels on it!

Stupideditor wrote:
Why bother wasting money in this area. The buildings will only get defaced by the thugs and cretins that live in Thornhill and further destroy any piecefull living for those who are normal humans.

Pull down the old buildings and turn the area into a cage ring so the low lifes can kick 10 bails of s**t out of each other.

There are plenty of decent people in Thornhill, and yes, like anywhere in this town there is still a 'cretinhood' of individuals but they aren't just exclusive to Thornhill like you're trying to suggest. We live in a very nice part, have done for years and as a resident don't we deserve to be regenerated and remodernised like other areas?

Huffybear wrote:

Stupideditor wrote:
Why bother wasting money in this area. The buildings will only get defaced by the thugs and cretins that live in Thornhill and further destroy any piecefull living for those who are normal humans.

Pull down the old buildings and turn the area into a cage ring so the low lifes can kick 10 bails of s**t out of each other.

There are plenty of decent people in Thornhill, and yes, like anywhere in this town there is still a 'cretinhood' of individuals but they aren't just exclusive to Thornhill like you're trying to suggest. We live in a very nice part, have done for years and as a resident don't we deserve to be regenerated and remodernised like other areas?

Yes you do Huffy Bear, terrible stereotyping going on. If you look at police statistics, it's usually only a tiny minority, and often (as the case in my area) a handful of people causing most of the vandalism. One person was responsible for a spate of 'car scratching' where we lived, caused thousands of pounds worth of damage!

Also, if you improve and modernise areas research has also shown that people take more pride in their surroundings and there is in fact less vandalism/defacing.

There is vandalism everywhere you look, even some pretty village can be subject to it,it can happen anywhere.

The residents of Thornhill deserve decent surroundings and have a pride in their area. To my mind, people who are judgemental and tar everyone with the same brush, are as bad as those they condemn!

Redback raises an interesting question though, would like some answers to that. Wasn't that funding withdrawn from Europe? can't remember now, memory isn't what it used to be!

Stupideditor wrote:
Why bother wasting money in this area. The buildings will only get defaced by the thugs and cretins that live in Thornhill and further destroy any piecefull living for those who are normal humans. Pull down the old buildings and turn the area into a cage ring so the low lifes can kick 10 bails of s**t out of each other.

It's been shown time and again that regeneration of an error leads to less anti-social behaviour and more civic pride. There will always be morons but at least this regeneration will help the good people who live there. Leaving the place to rot helps no-one.

Huffybear wrote:

Stupideditor wrote:
Why bother wasting money in this area. The buildings will only get defaced by the thugs and cretins that live in Thornhill and further destroy any piecefull living for those who are normal humans.

Pull down the old buildings and turn the area into a cage ring so the low lifes can kick 10 bails of s**t out of each other.

There are plenty of decent people in Thornhill, and yes, like anywhere in this town there is still a 'cretinhood' of individuals but they aren't just exclusive to Thornhill like you're trying to suggest. We live in a very nice part, have done for years and as a resident don't we deserve to be regenerated and remodernised like other areas?

Stupideditor or just plain stupid?

Thornhill has thousands of decent hard working people living on it, yes there are fools, but tell where there are not fools living is this city or country.

Clearly you are a fool, just recently a lady living on Thornhill was awarded an MBE, two years a gentleman from Thornhill was awarded an OBE, can you say the same about where you live?

If you bothered to poke your head out from under your rock, you would see a place that has improved vastly over the last 9 years, in that time crime has been reduced, clinic's have been built, better health programmes and projects have implemented, schools have been improved, children are doing better in those schools, youth and community projects have been implemented, a community transport has been put in place, parks and play area improved, but to name a few things.

Yes it has a few issues, but so does everywhere else. yes there is still alot to be done, but before you go sla**ing off the Thornhill and it's residents I suggest you go take a look and see for yourself the improvement that have been made, instead of making stupid comments based on pre-conceived ideas.

"Housing chiefs at Southampton City Council appointed Barratt Homes builders and First Wessex housing association to carry out the project after a bidding contest."

this bit needs to be concern about, its a way to sale council housing stocks to a private association owership. it gets round the need for the council to let the occupants have a vote on weather they want to stay under the council or be under a housing association.

southy wrote:
"Housing chiefs at Southampton City Council appointed Barratt Homes builders and First Wessex housing association to carry out the project after a bidding contest."

this bit needs to be concern about, its a way to sale council housing stocks to a private association owership. it gets round the need for the council to let the occupants have a vote on weather they want to stay under the council or be under a housing association.

I disagree with you in this instance,this in not a housing stock transfer, all the residents living in the council properties were given alternative choices of council homes somewhere else, or housing association properties elsewhere, as they would if they were on the council housing waiting list and also they were given the opportunity to move back to the new homes once they were built.

To my knowledge all tenants selected a new property and none asked to return, private lease holders were compensated.

It's not stock transfer, if it were the council would have to poll all tenants citywide, which it has done in the past.

southy, there may well be some minor concerns about how this development is being organised along the lines you outline. However, don’t you think just for once you could welcome some positive steps being taken to regenerate a rather run-down and troubled area of our city?
From my limited knowledge of the history of this scheme the “locals” have not only been kept informed but have been instrumental in influencing the decision making process.

freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there.
the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission.
this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

I moved to Thornhill from Winchester in September and have to have my say. Thornhill is not as bad as some narrow-mided people make out. When i lived in Winchester my local youth center was smashed in literally because of rivarly between gangs! I have not seen any more anti-social behaviour since then including while living here. I admit that Thornhill does have a reputation but so does Millbrook, Northam etc etc No matter where you live you will always find issues.

freefinker wrote:
southy, there may well be some minor concerns about how this development is being organised along the lines you outline. However, don’t you think just for once you could welcome some positive steps being taken to regenerate a rather run-down and troubled area of our city?
From my limited knowledge of the history of this scheme the “locals” have not only been kept informed but have been instrumental in influencing the decision making process.

Absolutely agree with you freefinker, this can only be a positive step, let's not forget this is the 1st of many redevelopments concerning these run down shopping parade.

The council has neglected the estates for years, Thornhill being the worst one neglected (in my opinion) so anything that will bring some life into these shopping parade can only be good for the people that live there.

southy wrote:
freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there.
the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission.
this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

the loss of 38 run down flats or the opportunity for 106 new houses?

Keep the run down flats? for:- high repair bills, people living in homes that are overcrowded, shops below that are un-used, stairwells that youth gather in, causing grief, children have no gardens to play safely in.

OR

106 houses:- mixed tenure affordable house of different sizes to meets people's needs with gardens for children, no repair costs to the council tax payer or taken for the housing revenue account, shops that will be occupied with the same services as now, a community centre with library, housing office, and with health projects being based centrally.

You decide which sounds best, I know which one I prefer

I suppose the money saved by shutting down care homes will be diverted to this project!
Care in the Community?
Maybe, Don't Care is more appropriate.

I live and work in Thornhill.My boss recieved the plans 2 weeks ago about the Hinkler Road redevelopment.There are not 106 houses being built, its mostly 2 bed flats a few houses and mostly private that have already been bought.Personally I cannot wait for the new development as it can only bring good things to Thornhill and create jobs in the new retail units.Ive been living here for nearly 10 years and the area has vastly improved in that time.I now call it 'home.'

More of my money wasted on low life britian again. Not taring everyone in thornhill with the same brush but why bother building nice new flats when we all know it's going to be defaced in a big way. Why not put the money into something more constructive like failing schools of southampton. An investment that will pay off in the future and not wasted to get wasted.

And for those in Thornhill i'd say the same for Weston, Millbrook, Lordshill, Townhill Park etc...

The big question is WHY????? Why are they spending so much money in Thornhill!!! I've luckily never lived in there but live across the road from it and all I ever see is money go into the estate, I dont see any big parks or skate ramps put in my estate. A hell of alot of anti social behaviour in that area aswell, Maybe it's not as bad as it use to be but it has NOT got alot better!

wilson castaway wrote:
I live and work in Thornhill.My boss recieved the plans 2 weeks ago about the Hinkler Road redevelopment.There are not 106 houses being built, its mostly 2 bed flats a few houses and mostly private that have already been bought.Personally I cannot wait for the new development as it can only bring good things to Thornhill and create jobs in the new retail units.Ive been living here for nearly 10 years and the area has vastly improved in that time.I now call it 'home.'

I saw the designs month's ago, the report says new homes, I said houses in my comment earlier, which was my error,

However I would like to know who told you that the house's had been sold already, I too live and spend alot of my time working in Thornhill paid and unpaid and I know that the the houses have not been sold, until today (or last week's full council cabinet meeting it was not officially decided to proceed with the project) so unless someone bought a house this morning then I'm afraid it's the Thornhill rumour mill working overtime as usual.

My View from the Hill wrote:

southy wrote:
freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there.
the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission.
this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

the loss of 38 run down flats or the opportunity for 106 new houses?

Keep the run down flats? for:- high repair bills, people living in homes that are overcrowded, shops below that are un-used, stairwells that youth gather in, causing grief, children have no gardens to play safely in.

OR

106 houses:- mixed tenure affordable house of different sizes to meets people's needs with gardens for children, no repair costs to the council tax payer or taken for the housing revenue account, shops that will be occupied with the same services as now, a community centre with library, housing office, and with health projects being based centrally.

You decide which sounds best, I know which one I prefer

you just dont get it do you, you are losing council homes to the private sector, this is the part that is wrong, make all those new homes council owned property for the council to sale direct to the new tenants or to rent out. handing this land out to a private housing association means lost revenue to the council coffers.
if a private housing association wants to build homes thats fair enough but let them acquire there own land to do the building on and not council land. council land should be kept for council buildings only and not sold off cheap.

southy wrote:

My View from the Hill wrote:

southy wrote: freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there. the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission. this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

the loss of 38 run down flats or the opportunity for 106 new houses? Keep the run down flats? for:- high repair bills, people living in homes that are overcrowded, shops below that are un-used, stairwells that youth gather in, causing grief, children have no gardens to play safely in. OR 106 houses:- mixed tenure affordable house of different sizes to meets people's needs with gardens for children, no repair costs to the council tax payer or taken for the housing revenue account, shops that will be occupied with the same services as now, a community centre with library, housing office, and with health projects being based centrally. You decide which sounds best, I know which one I prefer

you just dont get it do you, you are losing council homes to the private sector, this is the part that is wrong, make all those new homes council owned property for the council to sale direct to the new tenants or to rent out. handing this land out to a private housing association means lost revenue to the council coffers. if a private housing association wants to build homes thats fair enough but let them acquire there own land to do the building on and not council land. council land should be kept for council buildings only and not sold off cheap.

Southy - do you own your house - ex-council by any chance ?

Lauren1990 wrote:
I moved to Thornhill from Winchester in September and have to have my say. Thornhill is not as bad as some narrow-mided people make out. When i lived in Winchester my local youth center was smashed in literally because of rivarly between gangs! I have not seen any more anti-social behaviour since then including while living here. I admit that Thornhill does have a reputation but so does Millbrook, Northam etc etc No matter where you live you will always find issues.

Come on Lauren, no-one moves to Thornhill from Winchester! Major difference is the minority chav element are ring fenced in certain areas; In Southampton it is the opposite Chav rule!

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

My View from the Hill wrote:

southy wrote: freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there. the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission. this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

the loss of 38 run down flats or the opportunity for 106 new houses? Keep the run down flats? for:- high repair bills, people living in homes that are overcrowded, shops below that are un-used, stairwells that youth gather in, causing grief, children have no gardens to play safely in. OR 106 houses:- mixed tenure affordable house of different sizes to meets people's needs with gardens for children, no repair costs to the council tax payer or taken for the housing revenue account, shops that will be occupied with the same services as now, a community centre with library, housing office, and with health projects being based centrally. You decide which sounds best, I know which one I prefer

you just dont get it do you, you are losing council homes to the private sector, this is the part that is wrong, make all those new homes council owned property for the council to sale direct to the new tenants or to rent out. handing this land out to a private housing association means lost revenue to the council coffers. if a private housing association wants to build homes thats fair enough but let them acquire there own land to do the building on and not council land. council land should be kept for council buildings only and not sold off cheap.

Southy - do you own your house - ex-council by any chance ?

If Southy does own his own house and it is ex-council, what difference does that make?
We live in the world as it is, not necessarily the way we would like it to be.
I have never agreed with the sale of council housing, especially at a knock-down price.
I have always thought that council houses should be on a ten-year tenancy, after which it should come up for renewal.
In ten years, a young couple in a council house should have had their children, the father to have improved his position and the mother back to work.
Then they should be in a position to take out a morgage, from the Council, and buy on the open market to free up their council house for another young couple.
Unless a tenant is disabled of has a special need, I see no reason why they should be in a house that is maintained by the council, at less rent than a similar property would be on the open market, and in old age, when a care home is a possibility, get in for free because they have no property to sell.

Linesman wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

My View from the Hill wrote:

southy wrote: freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there. the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission. this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

the loss of 38 run down flats or the opportunity for 106 new houses? Keep the run down flats? for:- high repair bills, people living in homes that are overcrowded, shops below that are un-used, stairwells that youth gather in, causing grief, children have no gardens to play safely in. OR 106 houses:- mixed tenure affordable house of different sizes to meets people's needs with gardens for children, no repair costs to the council tax payer or taken for the housing revenue account, shops that will be occupied with the same services as now, a community centre with library, housing office, and with health projects being based centrally. You decide which sounds best, I know which one I prefer

you just dont get it do you, you are losing council homes to the private sector, this is the part that is wrong, make all those new homes council owned property for the council to sale direct to the new tenants or to rent out. handing this land out to a private housing association means lost revenue to the council coffers. if a private housing association wants to build homes thats fair enough but let them acquire there own land to do the building on and not council land. council land should be kept for council buildings only and not sold off cheap.

Southy - do you own your house - ex-council by any chance ?

If Southy does own his own house and it is ex-council, what difference does that make? We live in the world as it is, not necessarily the way we would like it to be. I have never agreed with the sale of council housing, especially at a knock-down price. I have always thought that council houses should be on a ten-year tenancy, after which it should come up for renewal. In ten years, a young couple in a council house should have had their children, the father to have improved his position and the mother back to work. Then they should be in a position to take out a morgage, from the Council, and buy on the open market to free up their council house for another young couple. Unless a tenant is disabled of has a special need, I see no reason why they should be in a house that is maintained by the council, at less rent than a similar property would be on the open market, and in old age, when a care home is a possibility, get in for free because they have no property to sell.

Exactly my point. Council stock should remain council stock. It should not be sold. If you can afford to buy a home you should buy on the open market.

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

My View from the Hill wrote:

southy wrote: freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there. the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission. this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

the loss of 38 run down flats or the opportunity for 106 new houses? Keep the run down flats? for:- high repair bills, people living in homes that are overcrowded, shops below that are un-used, stairwells that youth gather in, causing grief, children have no gardens to play safely in. OR 106 houses:- mixed tenure affordable house of different sizes to meets people's needs with gardens for children, no repair costs to the council tax payer or taken for the housing revenue account, shops that will be occupied with the same services as now, a community centre with library, housing office, and with health projects being based centrally. You decide which sounds best, I know which one I prefer

you just dont get it do you, you are losing council homes to the private sector, this is the part that is wrong, make all those new homes council owned property for the council to sale direct to the new tenants or to rent out. handing this land out to a private housing association means lost revenue to the council coffers. if a private housing association wants to build homes thats fair enough but let them acquire there own land to do the building on and not council land. council land should be kept for council buildings only and not sold off cheap.

Southy - do you own your house - ex-council by any chance ?

it do not matter weather if it is or not carpe but yes an house that was bought in the 70's from the council. and i dont have a problem with the council selling homes of to the tenant. but council owed land should never be sold it should be rebuilt on for the council ie homes

Carpe Diem wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

My View from the Hill wrote:

southy wrote: freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there. the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission. this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

the loss of 38 run down flats or the opportunity for 106 new houses? Keep the run down flats? for:- high repair bills, people living in homes that are overcrowded, shops below that are un-used, stairwells that youth gather in, causing grief, children have no gardens to play safely in. OR 106 houses:- mixed tenure affordable house of different sizes to meets people's needs with gardens for children, no repair costs to the council tax payer or taken for the housing revenue account, shops that will be occupied with the same services as now, a community centre with library, housing office, and with health projects being based centrally. You decide which sounds best, I know which one I prefer

you just dont get it do you, you are losing council homes to the private sector, this is the part that is wrong, make all those new homes council owned property for the council to sale direct to the new tenants or to rent out. handing this land out to a private housing association means lost revenue to the council coffers. if a private housing association wants to build homes thats fair enough but let them acquire there own land to do the building on and not council land. council land should be kept for council buildings only and not sold off cheap.

Southy - do you own your house - ex-council by any chance ?

If Southy does own his own house and it is ex-council, what difference does that make? We live in the world as it is, not necessarily the way we would like it to be. I have never agreed with the sale of council housing, especially at a knock-down price. I have always thought that council houses should be on a ten-year tenancy, after which it should come up for renewal. In ten years, a young couple in a council house should have had their children, the father to have improved his position and the mother back to work. Then they should be in a position to take out a morgage, from the Council, and buy on the open market to free up their council house for another young couple. Unless a tenant is disabled of has a special need, I see no reason why they should be in a house that is maintained by the council, at less rent than a similar property would be on the open market, and in old age, when a care home is a possibility, get in for free because they have no property to sell.

Exactly my point. Council stock should remain council stock. It should not be sold. If you can afford to buy a home you should buy on the open market.

council homes should be only allowed to be sold to that tenant, also the council should be allowed with out getting permission from the government to be able to acquire land to have new homes built for them to replace the homes that have been sold.

southy wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

My View from the Hill wrote:

southy wrote: freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there. the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission. this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

the loss of 38 run down flats or the opportunity for 106 new houses? Keep the run down flats? for:- high repair bills, people living in homes that are overcrowded, shops below that are un-used, stairwells that youth gather in, causing grief, children have no gardens to play safely in. OR 106 houses:- mixed tenure affordable house of different sizes to meets people's needs with gardens for children, no repair costs to the council tax payer or taken for the housing revenue account, shops that will be occupied with the same services as now, a community centre with library, housing office, and with health projects being based centrally. You decide which sounds best, I know which one I prefer

you just dont get it do you, you are losing council homes to the private sector, this is the part that is wrong, make all those new homes council owned property for the council to sale direct to the new tenants or to rent out. handing this land out to a private housing association means lost revenue to the council coffers. if a private housing association wants to build homes thats fair enough but let them acquire there own land to do the building on and not council land. council land should be kept for council buildings only and not sold off cheap.

Southy - do you own your house - ex-council by any chance ?

If Southy does own his own house and it is ex-council, what difference does that make? We live in the world as it is, not necessarily the way we would like it to be. I have never agreed with the sale of council housing, especially at a knock-down price. I have always thought that council houses should be on a ten-year tenancy, after which it should come up for renewal. In ten years, a young couple in a council house should have had their children, the father to have improved his position and the mother back to work. Then they should be in a position to take out a morgage, from the Council, and buy on the open market to free up their council house for another young couple. Unless a tenant is disabled of has a special need, I see no reason why they should be in a house that is maintained by the council, at less rent than a similar property would be on the open market, and in old age, when a care home is a possibility, get in for free because they have no property to sell.

Exactly my point. Council stock should remain council stock. It should not be sold. If you can afford to buy a home you should buy on the open market.

council homes should be only allowed to be sold to that tenant, also the council should be allowed with out getting permission from the government to be able to acquire land to have new homes built for them to replace the homes that have been sold.

So my council tax subsidises the building of more and more council properties that will be sold off cheaply to council tenants, while I have paid full market value for my own home. Hmmmm - who is the mug here ? My point is that everybody who buys their council home is taking that property out of council stock for ever. The council have limited availability of properties and land and are restricted by law when it comes to building new properties. This is why there is a major shortage of council accommodation so desperately needed by those who cannot afford to rent privately.

renting privately is out of the reach of most people has is buying a home. and council rented property,s pay for them selfs, some of the rent is taking to keep your council tax down. the big reason why there is not enough land is because some greedy people want to have land that you can build 4 or more houses on.
most people when they get settle into a home tend not to move again. what i would agree to is when an ex-council home comes up for sale it should be offered back to the council first.
who interduce the cheap council home for the tenant to buy.

I know from my work collegue whos partner works for council allocations.I cannot name names obviously and incedently anyone who thinks that these homes are going to be cheap to rent think again!!

I am afraid to say that most of the trouble I get at work isnt the usual lot that hang around Thornhill its kids from Sholing and Hedge End.And this is a fact.Shopworkers on the estate work with the police and pcso's to reduce the number of kids hanging around the streets and I can see an improvment.

southy wrote:
renting privately is out of the reach of most people has is buying a home. and council rented property,s pay for them selfs, some of the rent is taking to keep your council tax down. the big reason why there is not enough land is because some greedy people want to have land that you can build 4 or more houses on. most people when they get settle into a home tend not to move again. what i would agree to is when an ex-council home comes up for sale it should be offered back to the council first. who interduce the cheap council home for the tenant to buy.

It is precisely because renting privately or buying is not an option for a lot of people that council homes are necessary. Which is why the council should not be allowed to sell them. As to your final point - if the council has first refusal on an ex council property coming onto the market what price should they pay - the original price that the tenant paid perhaps ? Your thinking on this is prejudiced by your own self-interest.

here some thing else to think about, how many people around the uk have second homes, you can only live in one home at a time, any one who wants to own more than one home should be tax has a business. just look how many homes around southampton remain empty for most of the year, and we only see them with people in when the boat show is on or cows week.

southy wrote:
here some thing else to think about, how many people around the uk have second homes, you can only live in one home at a time, any one who wants to own more than one home should be tax has a business. just look how many homes around southampton remain empty for most of the year, and we only see them with people in when the boat show is on or cows week.

Different matter completely. If people want to use their money to buy property that's their prerogative. They earned it, they should be able to spend it any way they want as long as it's legal. You didn't answer my previous question - too difficult ?

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:
renting privately is out of the reach of most people has is buying a home. and council rented property,s pay for them selfs, some of the rent is taking to keep your council tax down. the big reason why there is not enough land is because some greedy people want to have land that you can build 4 or more houses on. most people when they get settle into a home tend not to move again. what i would agree to is when an ex-council home comes up for sale it should be offered back to the council first. who interduce the cheap council home for the tenant to buy.

It is precisely because renting privately or buying is not an option for a lot of people that council homes are necessary. Which is why the council should not be allowed to sell them. As to your final point - if the council has first refusal on an ex council property coming onto the market what price should they pay - the original price that the tenant paid perhaps ? Your thinking on this is prejudiced by your own self-interest.

no i dont your wrong there, not self interest at all, council homes should be allowed to be sold but only to the name on the rent book living in tenant. and councils should be allowed to be able to replace them. i never agree to council homes being sold cheaply. but that was the government of the 80's that done that just to put a noose around there necks so that they could not afford to go on strike.

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:
here some thing else to think about, how many people around the uk have second homes, you can only live in one home at a time, any one who wants to own more than one home should be tax has a business. just look how many homes around southampton remain empty for most of the year, and we only see them with people in when the boat show is on or cows week.

Different matter completely. If people want to use their money to buy property that's their prerogative. They earned it, they should be able to spend it any way they want as long as it's legal. You didn't answer my previous question - too difficult ?

no they should be treated has a business any one who wants to buy a second home, there are way to many standing empty propertys for most of the year its a waste of space homes that could be used all year round. there is plenty of hotels those people could stay in for the few days that they are here for.

southy wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote: renting privately is out of the reach of most people has is buying a home. and council rented property,s pay for them selfs, some of the rent is taking to keep your council tax down. the big reason why there is not enough land is because some greedy people want to have land that you can build 4 or more houses on. most people when they get settle into a home tend not to move again. what i would agree to is when an ex-council home comes up for sale it should be offered back to the council first. who interduce the cheap council home for the tenant to buy.

It is precisely because renting privately or buying is not an option for a lot of people that council homes are necessary. Which is why the council should not be allowed to sell them. As to your final point - if the council has first refusal on an ex council property coming onto the market what price should they pay - the original price that the tenant paid perhaps ? Your thinking on this is prejudiced by your own self-interest.

no i dont your wrong there, not self interest at all, council homes should be allowed to be sold but only to the name on the rent book living in tenant. and councils should be allowed to be able to replace them. i never agree to council homes being sold cheaply. but that was the government of the 80's that done that just to put a noose around there necks so that they could not afford to go on strike.

You're missing the point - the council cannot build more new homes, they don't have the land to do it and they don't have the legal right to do so. More importantly why should they build more homes just so that they can be passed into private hands at a huge discount to the tenant. The basic premise of providing council homes is that they are for people who cannot rent privately or cannot afford to buy - they should remain in council hands. Finally, which government put your neck in the noose in the 70s then ? You never agree with council homes being sold cheaply but it didn't stop you taking advantage.

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote: renting privately is out of the reach of most people has is buying a home. and council rented property,s pay for them selfs, some of the rent is taking to keep your council tax down. the big reason why there is not enough land is because some greedy people want to have land that you can build 4 or more houses on. most people when they get settle into a home tend not to move again. what i would agree to is when an ex-council home comes up for sale it should be offered back to the council first. who interduce the cheap council home for the tenant to buy.

It is precisely because renting privately or buying is not an option for a lot of people that council homes are necessary. Which is why the council should not be allowed to sell them. As to your final point - if the council has first refusal on an ex council property coming onto the market what price should they pay - the original price that the tenant paid perhaps ? Your thinking on this is prejudiced by your own self-interest.

no i dont your wrong there, not self interest at all, council homes should be allowed to be sold but only to the name on the rent book living in tenant. and councils should be allowed to be able to replace them. i never agree to council homes being sold cheaply. but that was the government of the 80's that done that just to put a noose around there necks so that they could not afford to go on strike.

You're missing the point - the council cannot build more new homes, they don't have the land to do it and they don't have the legal right to do so. More importantly why should they build more homes just so that they can be passed into private hands at a huge discount to the tenant. The basic premise of providing council homes is that they are for people who cannot rent privately or cannot afford to buy - they should remain in council hands. Finally, which government put your neck in the noose in the 70s then ? You never agree with council homes being sold cheaply but it didn't stop you taking advantage.

the point here is that those are council homes now, so selling the land off to a private firm has taken council homes away from the council. and the council can build new homes has long the land that they are building on had council homes on there in the first place, they are allowed to renew homes but what they can not do is buy land to build council homes on, the last labour controlled council done that in lordshill, pulled down a shopping centre and the flats that was council owned and built council owned homes.
what this council is doing is getting rid off council home stock though the back door.

wilson castaway wrote:
I know from my work collegue whos partner works for council allocations.I cannot name names obviously and incedently anyone who thinks that these homes are going to be cheap to rent think again!!

Council allocations would have nothing to do house sales and they wouldn't know if people have or have not bought private homes.

Allocations deal with allotting council properties not the sale of houses they have been built or are not owned by the council.

It must the local shop rumour mill working overtime.

The rents for the homes on the site will be in line with rents paid to housing associations in other area's, also the rent for similar council properties, agreed it might be slightly more expensive but eventually council rents will be in with housing association.

southy wrote:

My View from the Hill wrote:

southy wrote:
freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there.
the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission.
this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

the loss of 38 run down flats or the opportunity for 106 new houses?

Keep the run down flats? for:- high repair bills, people living in homes that are overcrowded, shops below that are un-used, stairwells that youth gather in, causing grief, children have no gardens to play safely in.

OR

106 houses:- mixed tenure affordable house of different sizes to meets people's needs with gardens for children, no repair costs to the council tax payer or taken for the housing revenue account, shops that will be occupied with the same services as now, a community centre with library, housing office, and with health projects being based centrally.

You decide which sounds best, I know which one I prefer

you just dont get it do you, you are losing council homes to the private sector, this is the part that is wrong, make all those new homes council owned property for the council to sale direct to the new tenants or to rent out. handing this land out to a private housing association means lost revenue to the council coffers.
if a private housing association wants to build homes thats fair enough but let them acquire there own land to do the building on and not council land. council land should be kept for council buildings only and not sold off cheap.

No Southy I do get it,

I think it's you that does not get it, the council can not build new homes, so the council sold the land to Barrett, that money goes to the council.

Barrett lease the homes to First Wessex who are responsible for the upkeep, so no repair bills saving the council money.

The shop's units are leased to another organisation who will plough the rents back into the community, again saving the council money on repairs.

The community centre will become a mini hub, with one lot of overheads instead of three (at present 1, housing office, 2, Library, 3 Community Health projects offices,) again since will save the council money.

The grounds maintenance is taken over by First Wessex and surcharge passed on to the tenants and lease holders, again saving the council money.

Residents get new homes, people can rent or part rent part buy if they wish to, or purchase outright.

Residents living on the estate already get facilities they need, they also get rid of a ugly shopping parade the are a hive for troublesome youth and adults, to be replaced by new shops new homes.

southy wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote: renting privately is out of the reach of most people has is buying a home. and council rented property,s pay for them selfs, some of the rent is taking to keep your council tax down. the big reason why there is not enough land is because some greedy people want to have land that you can build 4 or more houses on. most people when they get settle into a home tend not to move again. what i would agree to is when an ex-council home comes up for sale it should be offered back to the council first. who interduce the cheap council home for the tenant to buy.

It is precisely because renting privately or buying is not an option for a lot of people that council homes are necessary. Which is why the council should not be allowed to sell them. As to your final point - if the council has first refusal on an ex council property coming onto the market what price should they pay - the original price that the tenant paid perhaps ? Your thinking on this is prejudiced by your own self-interest.

no i dont your wrong there, not self interest at all, council homes should be allowed to be sold but only to the name on the rent book living in tenant. and councils should be allowed to be able to replace them. i never agree to council homes being sold cheaply. but that was the government of the 80's that done that just to put a noose around there necks so that they could not afford to go on strike.

You're missing the point - the council cannot build more new homes, they don't have the land to do it and they don't have the legal right to do so. More importantly why should they build more homes just so that they can be passed into private hands at a huge discount to the tenant. The basic premise of providing council homes is that they are for people who cannot rent privately or cannot afford to buy - they should remain in council hands. Finally, which government put your neck in the noose in the 70s then ? You never agree with council homes being sold cheaply but it didn't stop you taking advantage.

the point here is that those are council homes now, so selling the land off to a private firm has taken council homes away from the council. and the council can build new homes has long the land that they are building on had council homes on there in the first place, they are allowed to renew homes but what they can not do is buy land to build council homes on, the last labour controlled council done that in lordshill, pulled down a shopping centre and the flats that was council owned and built council owned homes.
what this council is doing is getting rid off council home stock though the back door.

Southy, I ask you this

Have you ever been in one of the flats that are being knocked down or the flats above the shops on Hinkler Parade?

I'm sure you haven't because you would know they were not exactly luxury apartments, they were 1960's square blocks, not that nice.

I have never stuck up for the council, but they have done a great job, they have worked so hard to get it right, they have given into residents demands, they have listened, I have worked with the council on lots of project and let me tell this, I never experienced them working like this, I hope they continue to work in the same way on the other sites.

It's not the council fault the demand for housing has shot up or that they can build new homes.

back in the mid 70's had been in one just for an afternoon and thats about it.
your wrong council can build homes has long has the land that going to build on has council homes on the land all ready. like up at the lordshill shopping centre where they pulled down the row of shops and flats that belong to the council and built new homes. that was under the labour council. what a council can not do is to acquire new land to build new council homes they need the government permission to do so. and at the present climate the government if ask by the council would give permission.
the council could of pulled the shops and flats down and built on that land them selfs,
this is a back door way of losing council housing stocks.
council homes makes money for the council they pay for them selfs there is no cost to the council tax payers. council rent even go's towards council tax to keep your council tax down.

i have no problem of this parade being pulled down and rebuilt on, the problem is the council has no need to sale the land to a private buyer, they could of done it them selfs like up in lordshill shopping centre.

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:

southy wrote:

My View from the Hill wrote:

southy wrote: freefinker yes it is good that they will regenerate the area that i will not disapprove off i have no problems there. the problem is the loss of housing stock, there nothing to stop them from pulling down and rebuilding new council homes, they are allowed to do this, what the council cant do is build new council homes on new required land with out the government permission. this is a way round of transfer housing stock land, clever but sneaky.

the loss of 38 run down flats or the opportunity for 106 new houses? Keep the run down flats? for:- high repair bills, people living in homes that are overcrowded, shops below that are un-used, stairwells that youth gather in, causing grief, children have no gardens to play safely in. OR 106 houses:- mixed tenure affordable house of different sizes to meets people's needs with gardens for children, no repair costs to the council tax payer or taken for the housing revenue account, shops that will be occupied with the same services as now, a community centre with library, housing office, and with health projects being based centrally. You decide which sounds best, I know which one I prefer

you just dont get it do you, you are losing council homes to the private sector, this is the part that is wrong, make all those new homes council owned property for the council to sale direct to the new tenants or to rent out. handing this land out to a private housing association means lost revenue to the council coffers. if a private housing association wants to build homes thats fair enough but let them acquire there own land to do the building on and not council land. council land should be kept for council buildings only and not sold off cheap.

Southy - do you own your house - ex-council by any chance ?

If Southy does own his own house and it is ex-council, what difference does that make? We live in the world as it is, not necessarily the way we would like it to be. I have never agreed with the sale of council housing, especially at a knock-down price. I have always thought that council houses should be on a ten-year tenancy, after which it should come up for renewal. In ten years, a young couple in a council house should have had their children, the father to have improved his position and the mother back to work. Then they should be in a position to take out a morgage, from the Council, and buy on the open market to free up their council house for another young couple. Unless a tenant is disabled of has a special need, I see no reason why they should be in a house that is maintained by the council, at less rent than a similar property would be on the open market, and in old age, when a care home is a possibility, get in for free because they have no property to sell.

Exactly my point. Council stock should remain council stock. It should not be sold. If you can afford to buy a home you should buy on the open market.

council homes should be only allowed to be sold to that tenant, also the council should be allowed with out getting permission from the government to be able to acquire land to have new homes built for them to replace the homes that have been sold.

So my council tax subsidises the building of more and more council properties that will be sold off cheaply to council tenants, while I have paid full market value for my own home. Hmmmm - who is the mug here ? My point is that everybody who buys their council home is taking that property out of council stock for ever. The council have limited availability of properties and land and are restricted by law when it comes to building new properties. This is why there is a major shortage of council accommodation so desperately needed by those who cannot afford to rent privately.

The council tenant buys at a reduced price, dependent on how many years they have been a council tenant.
After a certain period, they can then sell their property, at the Open Market price, pocket a nice profit, and buy elsewhere.
Very nice for the few.
The selling of council houses was a Tory 'vote winner', to ensure another term in power, with little thought for the long-term consequences.