Eastleigh residents protest over plans for 1,000 homes at beauty spot

Protesters at Stoneham Park campaign against the proposed development of more than 1,000 homes in the area.

Protesters at Stoneham Park campaign against the proposed development of more than 1,000 homes in the area.

First published in Eastleigh Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

ANGRY residents have demonstrated at a beauty spot earmarked for more than 1,000 houses.

About 50 people went to Stoneham Park in Eastleigh to raise awareness that the greenfield land is under threat from the bulldozers.

The 61-acre site, near Chestnut Avenue, has appeared in Eastleigh Borough Council’s Draft Local Plan as a possible area to build 1,300 new homes.

Campaigners say it would lead to traffic chaos and destroy one of the last green gaps between Eastleigh and Southampton.

Protest organiser Pat Ford said she was happy with the turnout, but disappointed that more Eastleigh borough councillors did not turn up.

She said: “We asked all 44 councillors on the borough – five replied, 39 ignored us and none came.

“I think it’s disgusting.

“But it was a really good turnout.”

Eastleigh North’s Liberal Democrat councillor Chris Thomas, also the chairman of the council’s Eastleigh Local Area Committee, said: “Councillors have many commitments and in my case I did not actually receive an invitation.

However, in this case the local plan has got a long way to go and any representations would be more useful when made directly to the council.”

Related links

The leader of the council’s Conservative group, Councillor Godfrey Olson, said that he had been unable to attend.

He said: “I had been to a similar event three or four weeks beforehand when Mrs Ford took me around.

“I am totally opposed to building on that land for so many reasons.

It is a lovely rural setting, it will destroy the park, it will create traffic and it takes away recreational space.”

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:37pm Thu 31 May 12

SAINTPAUL7 says...

Why are you lot so short sighted????????????
I live in Winchester where there are over 5000 on the the social housing waiting list, and i believe it is the same in Eastleigh and all other councils, so why not help house those that need it???

I am registered on the Winchester housing list and sometimes get knocked back by those who have NO local connection to winchester being housed, namely some from Eastleigh and other areas.

So building "On Your own Patch" Why not?? you cant rely on other towns to house YOU
Why are you lot so short sighted???????????? I live in Winchester where there are over 5000 on the the social housing waiting list, and i believe it is the same in Eastleigh and all other councils, so why not help house those that need it??? I am registered on the Winchester housing list and sometimes get knocked back by those who have NO local connection to winchester being housed, namely some from Eastleigh and other areas. So building "On Your own Patch" Why not?? you cant rely on other towns to house YOU SAINTPAUL7
  • Score: 0

9:30pm Thu 31 May 12

richieroo says...

It's not short sightedness when Eastleigh, Southampton & Test Valley signed an agreement NOT to build on this ancient greenbelt land only a few years ago!.

On being against building on our own patch I take it you've not seen the massive developments of recent years in Fair Oak, Chandlers Ford, Pirelli & Lakeside etc etc etc. Has there been anything that size in Winchester!?, no!. & of all these large developments only a tiny proportion of properties will be social housing anyhow.

As for being knocked back 'apparently' some of the new social housing in C Ford has gone to people from Pompey so that happens everywhere not just Winch'.

Personally I believe this development is more about greed than social need!. & the first step to help is helping yourself, as you said yourself you can't rely on others to house you (& that includes councils).
It's not short sightedness when Eastleigh, Southampton & Test Valley signed an agreement NOT to build on this ancient greenbelt land only a few years ago!. On being against building on our own patch I take it you've not seen the massive developments of recent years in Fair Oak, Chandlers Ford, Pirelli & Lakeside etc etc etc. Has there been anything that size in Winchester!?, no!. & of all these large developments only a tiny proportion of properties will be social housing anyhow. As for being knocked back 'apparently' some of the new social housing in C Ford has gone to people from Pompey so that happens everywhere not just Winch'. Personally I believe this development is more about greed than social need!. & the first step to help is helping yourself, as you said yourself you can't rely on others to house you (& that includes councils). richieroo
  • Score: 0

9:33pm Thu 31 May 12

loosehead says...

SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
Why are you lot so short sighted????????????
I live in Winchester where there are over 5000 on the the social housing waiting list, and i believe it is the same in Eastleigh and all other councils, so why not help house those that need it???

I am registered on the Winchester housing list and sometimes get knocked back by those who have NO local connection to winchester being housed, namely some from Eastleigh and other areas.

So building "On Your own Patch" Why not?? you cant rely on other towns to house YOU
Sorry but maybe if we pulled out of the EU & then stopped immigrants from all EU colonies & EU people from moving here there would be more jobs & more available housing stock & give us £14billion towards paying off the debt?
Why build on every green bit of land?
Here's a thought get yourself a caravan & make them give you a place to park?
[quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: Why are you lot so short sighted???????????? I live in Winchester where there are over 5000 on the the social housing waiting list, and i believe it is the same in Eastleigh and all other councils, so why not help house those that need it??? I am registered on the Winchester housing list and sometimes get knocked back by those who have NO local connection to winchester being housed, namely some from Eastleigh and other areas. So building "On Your own Patch" Why not?? you cant rely on other towns to house YOU[/p][/quote]Sorry but maybe if we pulled out of the EU & then stopped immigrants from all EU colonies & EU people from moving here there would be more jobs & more available housing stock & give us £14billion towards paying off the debt? Why build on every green bit of land? Here's a thought get yourself a caravan & make them give you a place to park? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:40pm Thu 31 May 12

loosehead says...

richieroo wrote:
It's not short sightedness when Eastleigh, Southampton & Test Valley signed an agreement NOT to build on this ancient greenbelt land only a few years ago!.

On being against building on our own patch I take it you've not seen the massive developments of recent years in Fair Oak, Chandlers Ford, Pirelli & Lakeside etc etc etc. Has there been anything that size in Winchester!?, no!. & of all these large developments only a tiny proportion of properties will be social housing anyhow.

As for being knocked back 'apparently' some of the new social housing in C Ford has gone to people from Pompey so that happens everywhere not just Winch'.

Personally I believe this development is more about greed than social need!. & the first step to help is helping yourself, as you said yourself you can't rely on others to house you (& that includes councils).
Just out of curiosity is this the same land they wanted to build the Football Stadium?
[quote][p][bold]richieroo[/bold] wrote: It's not short sightedness when Eastleigh, Southampton & Test Valley signed an agreement NOT to build on this ancient greenbelt land only a few years ago!. On being against building on our own patch I take it you've not seen the massive developments of recent years in Fair Oak, Chandlers Ford, Pirelli & Lakeside etc etc etc. Has there been anything that size in Winchester!?, no!. & of all these large developments only a tiny proportion of properties will be social housing anyhow. As for being knocked back 'apparently' some of the new social housing in C Ford has gone to people from Pompey so that happens everywhere not just Winch'. Personally I believe this development is more about greed than social need!. & the first step to help is helping yourself, as you said yourself you can't rely on others to house you (& that includes councils).[/p][/quote]Just out of curiosity is this the same land they wanted to build the Football Stadium? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Thu 31 May 12

SAINTPAUL7 says...

I agree to your first point.

YES KICK ALL THE F.......G IMMIGRANTS OUT.

THEY TAKE OUR, HOMES JOB ETC.

BUT WHY SHOULD I GET A CARAVAN,

OH MAYBE I WILL PARK ON YOUR DRIVE
I agree to your first point. YES KICK ALL THE F.......G IMMIGRANTS OUT. THEY TAKE OUR, HOMES JOB ETC. BUT WHY SHOULD I GET A CARAVAN, OH MAYBE I WILL PARK ON YOUR DRIVE SAINTPAUL7
  • Score: 0

9:50pm Thu 31 May 12

SAINTPAUL7 says...

I know about the developments in C Ford Fair oak Lakeside, and Pirellis. but there are larger areas to build on than Winchester.

Your point on Portsmouth People being housed seems they are being housed all over, oh sounds like immigrants lol.



The football ground also would have been the best place on Stoneham site too, but the pig headed Eastleigh council said no we have plans for cinema etc,.... oh that turned up years later, and the other argument was the ground being too close to eastleigh homes well that agin very SHORT SIGHTED.
I know about the developments in C Ford Fair oak Lakeside, and Pirellis. but there are larger areas to build on than Winchester. Your point on Portsmouth People being housed seems they are being housed all over, oh sounds like immigrants lol. The football ground also would have been the best place on Stoneham site too, but the pig headed Eastleigh council said no we have plans for cinema etc,.... oh that turned up years later, and the other argument was the ground being too close to eastleigh homes well that agin very SHORT SIGHTED. SAINTPAUL7
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Thu 31 May 12

richieroo says...

Saintpaul7 - You want a council house in Winch' but don't want development in Winch', so you're caught in catch 22 then... very short sighted!.
Saintpaul7 - You want a council house in Winch' but don't want development in Winch', so you're caught in catch 22 then... very short sighted!. richieroo
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Thu 31 May 12

RealTalkSouthampton says...

Simple. Build it. I have never really understood why Southampton eastleigh and totton don't become part of a greater Southampton. The transport would be better though tout. Things would just be more seamless. Take a look at Bournemouth/Dorset and see how much is built up. Then when you look at the Southampton area, including totton and Eastleigh and it all looks random urban sprals. Does it not make sense to build between the urban parts rather then build further out into the countryside.
Simple. Build it. I have never really understood why Southampton eastleigh and totton don't become part of a greater Southampton. The transport would be better though tout. Things would just be more seamless. Take a look at Bournemouth/Dorset and see how much is built up. Then when you look at the Southampton area, including totton and Eastleigh and it all looks random urban sprals. Does it not make sense to build between the urban parts rather then build further out into the countryside. RealTalkSouthampton
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Thu 31 May 12

Ted Rogers says...

loosehead wrote:
SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
Why are you lot so short sighted????????????
I live in Winchester where there are over 5000 on the the social housing waiting list, and i believe it is the same in Eastleigh and all other councils, so why not help house those that need it???

I am registered on the Winchester housing list and sometimes get knocked back by those who have NO local connection to winchester being housed, namely some from Eastleigh and other areas.

So building "On Your own Patch" Why not?? you cant rely on other towns to house YOU
Sorry but maybe if we pulled out of the EU & then stopped immigrants from all EU colonies & EU people from moving here there would be more jobs & more available housing stock & give us £14billion towards paying off the debt?
Why build on every green bit of land?
Here's a thought get yourself a caravan & make them give you a place to park?
And if all of the English ex pats were returned from the EU states resulting in over crowding...what would you moan about then?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: Why are you lot so short sighted???????????? I live in Winchester where there are over 5000 on the the social housing waiting list, and i believe it is the same in Eastleigh and all other councils, so why not help house those that need it??? I am registered on the Winchester housing list and sometimes get knocked back by those who have NO local connection to winchester being housed, namely some from Eastleigh and other areas. So building "On Your own Patch" Why not?? you cant rely on other towns to house YOU[/p][/quote]Sorry but maybe if we pulled out of the EU & then stopped immigrants from all EU colonies & EU people from moving here there would be more jobs & more available housing stock & give us £14billion towards paying off the debt? Why build on every green bit of land? Here's a thought get yourself a caravan & make them give you a place to park?[/p][/quote]And if all of the English ex pats were returned from the EU states resulting in over crowding...what would you moan about then? Ted Rogers
  • Score: 0

8:05am Fri 1 Jun 12

shirley-bill says...

give us the open vote on the Eu and let the people have the say. DC should do this now..
give us the open vote on the Eu and let the people have the say. DC should do this now.. shirley-bill
  • Score: 0

8:34am Fri 1 Jun 12

pushamara says...

SAINTPAUL7 wrote:
I agree to your first point. YES KICK ALL THE F.......G IMMIGRANTS OUT. THEY TAKE OUR, HOMES JOB ETC. BUT WHY SHOULD I GET A CARAVAN, OH MAYBE I WILL PARK ON YOUR DRIVE
My partner is from Poland, she hasn't taken your job. She has a very good job that's very well paid and most of us couldn't do. We have a mortgage on a very nice house that she hasn't stolen from you either do not everyone is taking your jobs and money, people like you just use that as an excuse to not get of your lazy arses and do anything.
[quote][p][bold]SAINTPAUL7[/bold] wrote: I agree to your first point. YES KICK ALL THE F.......G IMMIGRANTS OUT. THEY TAKE OUR, HOMES JOB ETC. BUT WHY SHOULD I GET A CARAVAN, OH MAYBE I WILL PARK ON YOUR DRIVE[/p][/quote]My partner is from Poland, she hasn't taken your job. She has a very good job that's very well paid and most of us couldn't do. We have a mortgage on a very nice house that she hasn't stolen from you either do not everyone is taking your jobs and money, people like you just use that as an excuse to not get of your lazy arses and do anything. pushamara
  • Score: 0

9:20am Fri 1 Jun 12

Brock_and_Roll says...

shirley-bill wrote:
give us the open vote on the Eu and let the people have the say. DC should do this now..
Shirley Bill - we live in a democracy. If as you think enough people think like you do, then all you need to do is to set up an "immigrants out" party and he presto you will enough seats to implement your policy.

I suspect however that you are woefully misguided. Even in the most deprived areas of London with huge ethnic tensions, parties like the BNP or NF still barely scrape a small percentage of the vote.

Most Brits realise that this country has ALWAYS been a country of immigration. Yes there are problems as the latest batch are integrated, but on the whole immgration over the centuries has enhanced Britain and made it great. May of things you probably think as "our culture" such as the English language, are in fact the monegeral result of centuries of immigration.

In fact you are the kind of bloke who wants immigrants out, but who would still expect to go for a "good old curry" or a chinese!
[quote][p][bold]shirley-bill[/bold] wrote: give us the open vote on the Eu and let the people have the say. DC should do this now..[/p][/quote]Shirley Bill - we live in a democracy. If as you think enough people think like you do, then all you need to do is to set up an "immigrants out" party and he presto you will enough seats to implement your policy. I suspect however that you are woefully misguided. Even in the most deprived areas of London with huge ethnic tensions, parties like the BNP or NF still barely scrape a small percentage of the vote. Most Brits realise that this country has ALWAYS been a country of immigration. Yes there are problems as the latest batch are integrated, but on the whole immgration over the centuries has enhanced Britain and made it great. May of things you probably think as "our culture" such as the English language, are in fact the monegeral result of centuries of immigration. In fact you are the kind of bloke who wants immigrants out, but who would still expect to go for a "good old curry" or a chinese! Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 0

10:12am Fri 1 Jun 12

ohec says...

What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble. ohec
  • Score: 0

11:31am Fri 1 Jun 12

mellowdude says...

ohec wrote:
What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
I would guess that everywhere you go in Southampton or the surrounding areas there would be no area of green land that someone wouldn't object to building on.

It must be hard for councils to meet our housing needs when most, if not all of their proposals are met with objection.

I do understand why people object to new houses being built near them, but what else can be done to tackle this?

I like how the protesters never suggest any alternative sites for the new houses, they just don't want them built near them.
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]I would guess that everywhere you go in Southampton or the surrounding areas there would be no area of green land that someone wouldn't object to building on. It must be hard for councils to meet our housing needs when most, if not all of their proposals are met with objection. I do understand why people object to new houses being built near them, but what else can be done to tackle this? I like how the protesters never suggest any alternative sites for the new houses, they just don't want them built near them. mellowdude
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Fri 1 Jun 12

ohec says...

mellowdude wrote:
ohec wrote:
What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
I would guess that everywhere you go in Southampton or the surrounding areas there would be no area of green land that someone wouldn't object to building on.

It must be hard for councils to meet our housing needs when most, if not all of their proposals are met with objection.

I do understand why people object to new houses being built near them, but what else can be done to tackle this?

I like how the protesters never suggest any alternative sites for the new houses, they just don't want them built near them.
Yes its very difficult for councils if as in this case they want to build on the periphery they get slated by the nimby's, if they try to build in the countryside they get slated by the countryside alliance people. Whether we like it or not this country is seriously overpopulated so we must build thousands & thousands of houses all over the country, and with house prices becoming increasingly too expensive for many social housing is going to be in even greater demand as time goes by. So they can protest as much as they like it won't make one little bit of difference.
[quote][p][bold]mellowdude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]I would guess that everywhere you go in Southampton or the surrounding areas there would be no area of green land that someone wouldn't object to building on. It must be hard for councils to meet our housing needs when most, if not all of their proposals are met with objection. I do understand why people object to new houses being built near them, but what else can be done to tackle this? I like how the protesters never suggest any alternative sites for the new houses, they just don't want them built near them.[/p][/quote]Yes its very difficult for councils if as in this case they want to build on the periphery they get slated by the nimby's, if they try to build in the countryside they get slated by the countryside alliance people. Whether we like it or not this country is seriously overpopulated so we must build thousands & thousands of houses all over the country, and with house prices becoming increasingly too expensive for many social housing is going to be in even greater demand as time goes by. So they can protest as much as they like it won't make one little bit of difference. ohec
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Fri 1 Jun 12

robfishman says...

Well said ohec. I don't want them built there either, but the reality is we need more homes and we need them now. Those in the ivory tower (sorry council office) need to make sure they charge plenty for infrustructure upgrades do deal with the obvious problems the development will cause as must the utility companies. That's not to say we should roll over and just accept it though.
Well said ohec. I don't want them built there either, but the reality is we need more homes and we need them now. Those in the ivory tower (sorry council office) need to make sure they charge plenty for infrustructure upgrades do deal with the obvious problems the development will cause as must the utility companies. That's not to say we should roll over and just accept it though. robfishman
  • Score: 0

7:24am Sat 2 Jun 12

loosehead says...

ohec wrote:
mellowdude wrote:
ohec wrote:
What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
I would guess that everywhere you go in Southampton or the surrounding areas there would be no area of green land that someone wouldn't object to building on.

It must be hard for councils to meet our housing needs when most, if not all of their proposals are met with objection.

I do understand why people object to new houses being built near them, but what else can be done to tackle this?

I like how the protesters never suggest any alternative sites for the new houses, they just don't want them built near them.
Yes its very difficult for councils if as in this case they want to build on the periphery they get slated by the nimby's, if they try to build in the countryside they get slated by the countryside alliance people. Whether we like it or not this country is seriously overpopulated so we must build thousands & thousands of houses all over the country, and with house prices becoming increasingly too expensive for many social housing is going to be in even greater demand as time goes by. So they can protest as much as they like it won't make one little bit of difference.
Could you please tell us why we let more people in if were so overpopulated?
One answer could be to copy a lot of the developing world & build cities in the sky.
Instead of destroying our countryside & green spaces these would have shops & amenities as well as sky walk ways & just in case you don't know what I'm talking about try watching a program called MegaStructures
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mellowdude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]I would guess that everywhere you go in Southampton or the surrounding areas there would be no area of green land that someone wouldn't object to building on. It must be hard for councils to meet our housing needs when most, if not all of their proposals are met with objection. I do understand why people object to new houses being built near them, but what else can be done to tackle this? I like how the protesters never suggest any alternative sites for the new houses, they just don't want them built near them.[/p][/quote]Yes its very difficult for councils if as in this case they want to build on the periphery they get slated by the nimby's, if they try to build in the countryside they get slated by the countryside alliance people. Whether we like it or not this country is seriously overpopulated so we must build thousands & thousands of houses all over the country, and with house prices becoming increasingly too expensive for many social housing is going to be in even greater demand as time goes by. So they can protest as much as they like it won't make one little bit of difference.[/p][/quote]Could you please tell us why we let more people in if were so overpopulated? One answer could be to copy a lot of the developing world & build cities in the sky. Instead of destroying our countryside & green spaces these would have shops & amenities as well as sky walk ways & just in case you don't know what I'm talking about try watching a program called MegaStructures loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:46am Sat 2 Jun 12

ohec says...

loosehead wrote:
ohec wrote:
mellowdude wrote:
ohec wrote:
What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
I would guess that everywhere you go in Southampton or the surrounding areas there would be no area of green land that someone wouldn't object to building on.

It must be hard for councils to meet our housing needs when most, if not all of their proposals are met with objection.

I do understand why people object to new houses being built near them, but what else can be done to tackle this?

I like how the protesters never suggest any alternative sites for the new houses, they just don't want them built near them.
Yes its very difficult for councils if as in this case they want to build on the periphery they get slated by the nimby's, if they try to build in the countryside they get slated by the countryside alliance people. Whether we like it or not this country is seriously overpopulated so we must build thousands & thousands of houses all over the country, and with house prices becoming increasingly too expensive for many social housing is going to be in even greater demand as time goes by. So they can protest as much as they like it won't make one little bit of difference.
Could you please tell us why we let more people in if were so overpopulated?
One answer could be to copy a lot of the developing world & build cities in the sky.
Instead of destroying our countryside & green spaces these would have shops & amenities as well as sky walk ways & just in case you don't know what I'm talking about try watching a program called MegaStructures
Perhaps if people had taken Enoch Powell seriously then things might have been different, then to make matters worse we flung open our doors to Europe. We are constantly being told by the leaders of all parties that we need all of these immigrants and they are good for our country, i am not sure how they arrive at that conclusion but thats another issue, the fact is that only a small proportion of our green and pleasant land is actually populated its just that we all want to live in the same places. Governments have attempted over the years to spread the load with towns like Telford, Stevenage, Harlow, and Milton Keynes but to deal with our housing needs you need to build a Milton Keynes every year for a few years. We have the space to do that but not the inclination because we love our countryside, if only we could turn the clock back.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mellowdude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]I would guess that everywhere you go in Southampton or the surrounding areas there would be no area of green land that someone wouldn't object to building on. It must be hard for councils to meet our housing needs when most, if not all of their proposals are met with objection. I do understand why people object to new houses being built near them, but what else can be done to tackle this? I like how the protesters never suggest any alternative sites for the new houses, they just don't want them built near them.[/p][/quote]Yes its very difficult for councils if as in this case they want to build on the periphery they get slated by the nimby's, if they try to build in the countryside they get slated by the countryside alliance people. Whether we like it or not this country is seriously overpopulated so we must build thousands & thousands of houses all over the country, and with house prices becoming increasingly too expensive for many social housing is going to be in even greater demand as time goes by. So they can protest as much as they like it won't make one little bit of difference.[/p][/quote]Could you please tell us why we let more people in if were so overpopulated? One answer could be to copy a lot of the developing world & build cities in the sky. Instead of destroying our countryside & green spaces these would have shops & amenities as well as sky walk ways & just in case you don't know what I'm talking about try watching a program called MegaStructures[/p][/quote]Perhaps if people had taken Enoch Powell seriously then things might have been different, then to make matters worse we flung open our doors to Europe. We are constantly being told by the leaders of all parties that we need all of these immigrants and they are good for our country, i am not sure how they arrive at that conclusion but thats another issue, the fact is that only a small proportion of our green and pleasant land is actually populated its just that we all want to live in the same places. Governments have attempted over the years to spread the load with towns like Telford, Stevenage, Harlow, and Milton Keynes but to deal with our housing needs you need to build a Milton Keynes every year for a few years. We have the space to do that but not the inclination because we love our countryside, if only we could turn the clock back. ohec
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Sat 2 Jun 12

loosehead says...

ohec wrote:
loosehead wrote:
ohec wrote:
mellowdude wrote:
ohec wrote:
What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
I would guess that everywhere you go in Southampton or the surrounding areas there would be no area of green land that someone wouldn't object to building on.

It must be hard for councils to meet our housing needs when most, if not all of their proposals are met with objection.

I do understand why people object to new houses being built near them, but what else can be done to tackle this?

I like how the protesters never suggest any alternative sites for the new houses, they just don't want them built near them.
Yes its very difficult for councils if as in this case they want to build on the periphery they get slated by the nimby's, if they try to build in the countryside they get slated by the countryside alliance people. Whether we like it or not this country is seriously overpopulated so we must build thousands & thousands of houses all over the country, and with house prices becoming increasingly too expensive for many social housing is going to be in even greater demand as time goes by. So they can protest as much as they like it won't make one little bit of difference.
Could you please tell us why we let more people in if were so overpopulated?
One answer could be to copy a lot of the developing world & build cities in the sky.
Instead of destroying our countryside & green spaces these would have shops & amenities as well as sky walk ways & just in case you don't know what I'm talking about try watching a program called MegaStructures
Perhaps if people had taken Enoch Powell seriously then things might have been different, then to make matters worse we flung open our doors to Europe. We are constantly being told by the leaders of all parties that we need all of these immigrants and they are good for our country, i am not sure how they arrive at that conclusion but thats another issue, the fact is that only a small proportion of our green and pleasant land is actually populated its just that we all want to live in the same places. Governments have attempted over the years to spread the load with towns like Telford, Stevenage, Harlow, and Milton Keynes but to deal with our housing needs you need to build a Milton Keynes every year for a few years. We have the space to do that but not the inclination because we love our countryside, if only we could turn the clock back.
Please tell me what are the rules concerning Asylum seekers? aren't they suppose to go to the nearest country to seek asylum?
If so why have we got so many Zimbabweans,Nigerian
s,Afghanistani's, Iraqi's You name it coming here to claim asylum?
I have nothing against legal immigrants & I believe we should pull out of the EU.
This would stop the 3million + Eastern europeans coming & going & I believe all illegals should be treated the same way as Australia.
Put them on an Island & as soon as possible send them back.
In Thailand you a foreigner can only be long stay tourists & if you don't earn enough from abroad or run a company earning enough you are told to go if you don't you end up in a real hell hole prison (No Telly's)
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mellowdude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]I would guess that everywhere you go in Southampton or the surrounding areas there would be no area of green land that someone wouldn't object to building on. It must be hard for councils to meet our housing needs when most, if not all of their proposals are met with objection. I do understand why people object to new houses being built near them, but what else can be done to tackle this? I like how the protesters never suggest any alternative sites for the new houses, they just don't want them built near them.[/p][/quote]Yes its very difficult for councils if as in this case they want to build on the periphery they get slated by the nimby's, if they try to build in the countryside they get slated by the countryside alliance people. Whether we like it or not this country is seriously overpopulated so we must build thousands & thousands of houses all over the country, and with house prices becoming increasingly too expensive for many social housing is going to be in even greater demand as time goes by. So they can protest as much as they like it won't make one little bit of difference.[/p][/quote]Could you please tell us why we let more people in if were so overpopulated? One answer could be to copy a lot of the developing world & build cities in the sky. Instead of destroying our countryside & green spaces these would have shops & amenities as well as sky walk ways & just in case you don't know what I'm talking about try watching a program called MegaStructures[/p][/quote]Perhaps if people had taken Enoch Powell seriously then things might have been different, then to make matters worse we flung open our doors to Europe. We are constantly being told by the leaders of all parties that we need all of these immigrants and they are good for our country, i am not sure how they arrive at that conclusion but thats another issue, the fact is that only a small proportion of our green and pleasant land is actually populated its just that we all want to live in the same places. Governments have attempted over the years to spread the load with towns like Telford, Stevenage, Harlow, and Milton Keynes but to deal with our housing needs you need to build a Milton Keynes every year for a few years. We have the space to do that but not the inclination because we love our countryside, if only we could turn the clock back.[/p][/quote]Please tell me what are the rules concerning Asylum seekers? aren't they suppose to go to the nearest country to seek asylum? If so why have we got so many Zimbabweans,Nigerian s,Afghanistani's, Iraqi's You name it coming here to claim asylum? I have nothing against legal immigrants & I believe we should pull out of the EU. This would stop the 3million + Eastern europeans coming & going & I believe all illegals should be treated the same way as Australia. Put them on an Island & as soon as possible send them back. In Thailand you a foreigner can only be long stay tourists & if you don't earn enough from abroad or run a company earning enough you are told to go if you don't you end up in a real hell hole prison (No Telly's) loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Sun 3 Jun 12

richieroo says...

ohec wrote:
What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!.
The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse.
& as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!. The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse. & as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!. richieroo
  • Score: 0

11:19am Mon 4 Jun 12

ohec says...

richieroo wrote:
ohec wrote:
What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!.
The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse.
& as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.
Well hands up to you for having the guts to admit you are a nimby, but i have enough faith in our planning system to ensure that adequate provision is made with regard to infrastructure, if you are so worried about carbon footprints sell you car and get a bike then you won't have to queue in the traffic. I am sorry but your argument doesn't stack up its not just a case of whether its social housing or not we need both and as for your suggestion of converting offices into flats i don't think you would buy one or are you suggesting they would be good enough for social housing only. As you point out you have purchased your home so you always have the option to sell and move elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]richieroo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!. The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse. & as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.[/p][/quote]Well hands up to you for having the guts to admit you are a nimby, but i have enough faith in our planning system to ensure that adequate provision is made with regard to infrastructure, if you are so worried about carbon footprints sell you car and get a bike then you won't have to queue in the traffic. I am sorry but your argument doesn't stack up its not just a case of whether its social housing or not we need both and as for your suggestion of converting offices into flats i don't think you would buy one or are you suggesting they would be good enough for social housing only. As you point out you have purchased your home so you always have the option to sell and move elsewhere. ohec
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Mon 4 Jun 12

richieroo says...

ohec wrote:
richieroo wrote:
ohec wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!. The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse. & as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.
Well hands up to you for having the guts to admit you are a nimby, but i have enough faith in our planning system to ensure that adequate provision is made with regard to infrastructure, if you are so worried about carbon footprints sell you car and get a bike then you won't have to queue in the traffic. I am sorry but your argument doesn't stack up its not just a case of whether its social housing or not we need both and as for your suggestion of converting offices into flats i don't think you would buy one or are you suggesting they would be good enough for social housing only. As you point out you have purchased your home so you always have the option to sell and move elsewhere.
I disagree in your faith in the planning system when the Pirelli site is known locally as 'little Beiruit' amongst other names, none of them flattering & I have a friend on the as yet unfinished Lakeside development who has referred to it variously as like the Chatsworth estate on Shameless or at times like Brands Hatch. I myself live in a development where a little further down the road from me on one side of the road the houses have one parking space & across the road two spaces, same houses different parking needs, who decided that one?. One of the fields on this proposed site recently had planning permission refused for a school & one of the reasons apparently was it couldn't be build there due to its proximity to a 43" gas pipe that runs across the site... far too dangerous to site a school over it & yet now the same field can have 300 houses on it!?!.

I agree that we need both private & social housing, but to keep building new homes on farmland as a large chunk of this site is, is madness. Where in 50 -100 years will we grow crops & animals to feed our ever increasing population if we keep covering all the farmland available with housing?.

Also as I'm sure you've seen there are thousands of empty properties across the country we should be doing more to get them back into use especially the ones that were emptied by the last government for redevelopment that never happened. We also had here until very recently a three bed house locally that sat empty & boarded up for in excess of five years (anyone whose driven on Nightingale Ave will know the house I mean) which it turns out was housing association stock, so if we're so desperate for social housing how can we leave a decent sized 1930's property empty so long?. Just keep on building is a very lazy & easy option to take.

As for my carbon footprint when I worked locally to E/Leigh rather than the other side of the forest as I do now, I did prefer to use my bike as it had the benefits of getting exercise into my day & was actually quicker than taking the car right across town too, which as you're right a few more of us should take heed of getting on our bikes for commutes on sunny days, as most people probably wouldn't ride in the rain or snow or work too far to commute comfortably by bike anyhow. I have looked at properties that have been converted from industrial / office space before buying my house & they were actually all very large & spacious & if they had had the secure parking for my car / bike I would've snapped one up but lack of parking was their main drawback if you're a private or a social housing resident that would affect you unfortunately, but it's still an option I wouldn't rule out if my situation changed or as a short term emergency social housing option either, why let decent buildings sit idle if they are suitable for conversion?. I could move like you suggest & a few people seem to be from the increasing number of estate agent boards appearing in the area, but one of the major attractions for me was being on the edge of town with playing fields, farmland & parks on my doorstep. The same parkland that only a few years ago the council agreed NOT to build on & wanted to restore to its former glory as it was a Capability Brown designed landscape & too valuable to lose. It will be a shame to see all the football pitches, cricket grounds, golf ranges & park / farmland go from this area & it will be built on at some point but at least we live in a country where we can voice our opinions & say I don't or do like whats happening.
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]richieroo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!. The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse. & as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.[/p][/quote]Well hands up to you for having the guts to admit you are a nimby, but i have enough faith in our planning system to ensure that adequate provision is made with regard to infrastructure, if you are so worried about carbon footprints sell you car and get a bike then you won't have to queue in the traffic. I am sorry but your argument doesn't stack up its not just a case of whether its social housing or not we need both and as for your suggestion of converting offices into flats i don't think you would buy one or are you suggesting they would be good enough for social housing only. As you point out you have purchased your home so you always have the option to sell and move elsewhere.[/p][/quote]I disagree in your faith in the planning system when the Pirelli site is known locally as 'little Beiruit' amongst other names, none of them flattering & I have a friend on the as yet unfinished Lakeside development who has referred to it variously as like the Chatsworth estate on Shameless or at times like Brands Hatch. I myself live in a development where a little further down the road from me on one side of the road the houses have one parking space & across the road two spaces, same houses different parking needs, who decided that one?. One of the fields on this proposed site recently had planning permission refused for a school & one of the reasons apparently was it couldn't be build there due to its proximity to a 43" gas pipe that runs across the site... far too dangerous to site a school over it & yet now the same field can have 300 houses on it!?!. I agree that we need both private & social housing, but to keep building new homes on farmland as a large chunk of this site is, is madness. Where in 50 -100 years will we grow crops & animals to feed our ever increasing population if we keep covering all the farmland available with housing?. Also as I'm sure you've seen there are thousands of empty properties across the country we should be doing more to get them back into use especially the ones that were emptied by the last government for redevelopment that never happened. We also had here until very recently a three bed house locally that sat empty & boarded up for in excess of five years (anyone whose driven on Nightingale Ave will know the house I mean) which it turns out was housing association stock, so if we're so desperate for social housing how can we leave a decent sized 1930's property empty so long?. Just keep on building is a very lazy & easy option to take. As for my carbon footprint when I worked locally to E/Leigh rather than the other side of the forest as I do now, I did prefer to use my bike as it had the benefits of getting exercise into my day & was actually quicker than taking the car right across town too, which as you're right a few more of us should take heed of getting on our bikes for commutes on sunny days, as most people probably wouldn't ride in the rain or snow or work too far to commute comfortably by bike anyhow. I have looked at properties that have been converted from industrial / office space before buying my house & they were actually all very large & spacious & if they had had the secure parking for my car / bike I would've snapped one up but lack of parking was their main drawback if you're a private or a social housing resident that would affect you unfortunately, but it's still an option I wouldn't rule out if my situation changed or as a short term emergency social housing option either, why let decent buildings sit idle if they are suitable for conversion?. I could move like you suggest & a few people seem to be from the increasing number of estate agent boards appearing in the area, but one of the major attractions for me was being on the edge of town with playing fields, farmland & parks on my doorstep. The same parkland that only a few years ago the council agreed NOT to build on & wanted to restore to its former glory as it was a Capability Brown designed landscape & too valuable to lose. It will be a shame to see all the football pitches, cricket grounds, golf ranges & park / farmland go from this area & it will be built on at some point but at least we live in a country where we can voice our opinions & say I don't or do like whats happening. richieroo
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Mon 4 Jun 12

loosehead says...

richieroo wrote:
ohec wrote:
richieroo wrote:
ohec wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!. The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse. & as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.
Well hands up to you for having the guts to admit you are a nimby, but i have enough faith in our planning system to ensure that adequate provision is made with regard to infrastructure, if you are so worried about carbon footprints sell you car and get a bike then you won't have to queue in the traffic. I am sorry but your argument doesn't stack up its not just a case of whether its social housing or not we need both and as for your suggestion of converting offices into flats i don't think you would buy one or are you suggesting they would be good enough for social housing only. As you point out you have purchased your home so you always have the option to sell and move elsewhere.
I disagree in your faith in the planning system when the Pirelli site is known locally as 'little Beiruit' amongst other names, none of them flattering & I have a friend on the as yet unfinished Lakeside development who has referred to it variously as like the Chatsworth estate on Shameless or at times like Brands Hatch. I myself live in a development where a little further down the road from me on one side of the road the houses have one parking space & across the road two spaces, same houses different parking needs, who decided that one?. One of the fields on this proposed site recently had planning permission refused for a school & one of the reasons apparently was it couldn't be build there due to its proximity to a 43" gas pipe that runs across the site... far too dangerous to site a school over it & yet now the same field can have 300 houses on it!?!.

I agree that we need both private & social housing, but to keep building new homes on farmland as a large chunk of this site is, is madness. Where in 50 -100 years will we grow crops & animals to feed our ever increasing population if we keep covering all the farmland available with housing?.

Also as I'm sure you've seen there are thousands of empty properties across the country we should be doing more to get them back into use especially the ones that were emptied by the last government for redevelopment that never happened. We also had here until very recently a three bed house locally that sat empty & boarded up for in excess of five years (anyone whose driven on Nightingale Ave will know the house I mean) which it turns out was housing association stock, so if we're so desperate for social housing how can we leave a decent sized 1930's property empty so long?. Just keep on building is a very lazy & easy option to take.

As for my carbon footprint when I worked locally to E/Leigh rather than the other side of the forest as I do now, I did prefer to use my bike as it had the benefits of getting exercise into my day & was actually quicker than taking the car right across town too, which as you're right a few more of us should take heed of getting on our bikes for commutes on sunny days, as most people probably wouldn't ride in the rain or snow or work too far to commute comfortably by bike anyhow. I have looked at properties that have been converted from industrial / office space before buying my house & they were actually all very large & spacious & if they had had the secure parking for my car / bike I would've snapped one up but lack of parking was their main drawback if you're a private or a social housing resident that would affect you unfortunately, but it's still an option I wouldn't rule out if my situation changed or as a short term emergency social housing option either, why let decent buildings sit idle if they are suitable for conversion?. I could move like you suggest & a few people seem to be from the increasing number of estate agent boards appearing in the area, but one of the major attractions for me was being on the edge of town with playing fields, farmland & parks on my doorstep. The same parkland that only a few years ago the council agreed NOT to build on & wanted to restore to its former glory as it was a Capability Brown designed landscape & too valuable to lose. It will be a shame to see all the football pitches, cricket grounds, golf ranges & park / farmland go from this area & it will be built on at some point but at least we live in a country where we can voice our opinions & say I don't or do like whats happening.
I bought a house in Baronsmead Southampton.
we were told there would be a few Social houses, we were expected to pay for the upkeep & maintenance of the park by said houses.
They then increased the amount of social housing going there & there would not be a park but a playground for the kids of the social housing quarter.
I sold up as soon as I could & I'm glad I did as the Kids keep wrecking the play area & the private residents have to pay more for new equipment.
What should happen is if an estate of private houses are going to be built the builders should build a designated amount of houses elsewhere for the local council.
if you could see the tip the residents have made of the social housing area you would see why I believe this
[quote][p][bold]richieroo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]richieroo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!. The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse. & as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.[/p][/quote]Well hands up to you for having the guts to admit you are a nimby, but i have enough faith in our planning system to ensure that adequate provision is made with regard to infrastructure, if you are so worried about carbon footprints sell you car and get a bike then you won't have to queue in the traffic. I am sorry but your argument doesn't stack up its not just a case of whether its social housing or not we need both and as for your suggestion of converting offices into flats i don't think you would buy one or are you suggesting they would be good enough for social housing only. As you point out you have purchased your home so you always have the option to sell and move elsewhere.[/p][/quote]I disagree in your faith in the planning system when the Pirelli site is known locally as 'little Beiruit' amongst other names, none of them flattering & I have a friend on the as yet unfinished Lakeside development who has referred to it variously as like the Chatsworth estate on Shameless or at times like Brands Hatch. I myself live in a development where a little further down the road from me on one side of the road the houses have one parking space & across the road two spaces, same houses different parking needs, who decided that one?. One of the fields on this proposed site recently had planning permission refused for a school & one of the reasons apparently was it couldn't be build there due to its proximity to a 43" gas pipe that runs across the site... far too dangerous to site a school over it & yet now the same field can have 300 houses on it!?!. I agree that we need both private & social housing, but to keep building new homes on farmland as a large chunk of this site is, is madness. Where in 50 -100 years will we grow crops & animals to feed our ever increasing population if we keep covering all the farmland available with housing?. Also as I'm sure you've seen there are thousands of empty properties across the country we should be doing more to get them back into use especially the ones that were emptied by the last government for redevelopment that never happened. We also had here until very recently a three bed house locally that sat empty & boarded up for in excess of five years (anyone whose driven on Nightingale Ave will know the house I mean) which it turns out was housing association stock, so if we're so desperate for social housing how can we leave a decent sized 1930's property empty so long?. Just keep on building is a very lazy & easy option to take. As for my carbon footprint when I worked locally to E/Leigh rather than the other side of the forest as I do now, I did prefer to use my bike as it had the benefits of getting exercise into my day & was actually quicker than taking the car right across town too, which as you're right a few more of us should take heed of getting on our bikes for commutes on sunny days, as most people probably wouldn't ride in the rain or snow or work too far to commute comfortably by bike anyhow. I have looked at properties that have been converted from industrial / office space before buying my house & they were actually all very large & spacious & if they had had the secure parking for my car / bike I would've snapped one up but lack of parking was their main drawback if you're a private or a social housing resident that would affect you unfortunately, but it's still an option I wouldn't rule out if my situation changed or as a short term emergency social housing option either, why let decent buildings sit idle if they are suitable for conversion?. I could move like you suggest & a few people seem to be from the increasing number of estate agent boards appearing in the area, but one of the major attractions for me was being on the edge of town with playing fields, farmland & parks on my doorstep. The same parkland that only a few years ago the council agreed NOT to build on & wanted to restore to its former glory as it was a Capability Brown designed landscape & too valuable to lose. It will be a shame to see all the football pitches, cricket grounds, golf ranges & park / farmland go from this area & it will be built on at some point but at least we live in a country where we can voice our opinions & say I don't or do like whats happening.[/p][/quote]I bought a house in Baronsmead Southampton. we were told there would be a few Social houses, we were expected to pay for the upkeep & maintenance of the park by said houses. They then increased the amount of social housing going there & there would not be a park but a playground for the kids of the social housing quarter. I sold up as soon as I could & I'm glad I did as the Kids keep wrecking the play area & the private residents have to pay more for new equipment. What should happen is if an estate of private houses are going to be built the builders should build a designated amount of houses elsewhere for the local council. if you could see the tip the residents have made of the social housing area you would see why I believe this loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Tue 5 Jun 12

ohec says...

loosehead wrote:
richieroo wrote:
ohec wrote:
richieroo wrote:
ohec wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!. The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse. & as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.
Well hands up to you for having the guts to admit you are a nimby, but i have enough faith in our planning system to ensure that adequate provision is made with regard to infrastructure, if you are so worried about carbon footprints sell you car and get a bike then you won't have to queue in the traffic. I am sorry but your argument doesn't stack up its not just a case of whether its social housing or not we need both and as for your suggestion of converting offices into flats i don't think you would buy one or are you suggesting they would be good enough for social housing only. As you point out you have purchased your home so you always have the option to sell and move elsewhere.
I disagree in your faith in the planning system when the Pirelli site is known locally as 'little Beiruit' amongst other names, none of them flattering & I have a friend on the as yet unfinished Lakeside development who has referred to it variously as like the Chatsworth estate on Shameless or at times like Brands Hatch. I myself live in a development where a little further down the road from me on one side of the road the houses have one parking space & across the road two spaces, same houses different parking needs, who decided that one?. One of the fields on this proposed site recently had planning permission refused for a school & one of the reasons apparently was it couldn't be build there due to its proximity to a 43" gas pipe that runs across the site... far too dangerous to site a school over it & yet now the same field can have 300 houses on it!?!.

I agree that we need both private & social housing, but to keep building new homes on farmland as a large chunk of this site is, is madness. Where in 50 -100 years will we grow crops & animals to feed our ever increasing population if we keep covering all the farmland available with housing?.

Also as I'm sure you've seen there are thousands of empty properties across the country we should be doing more to get them back into use especially the ones that were emptied by the last government for redevelopment that never happened. We also had here until very recently a three bed house locally that sat empty & boarded up for in excess of five years (anyone whose driven on Nightingale Ave will know the house I mean) which it turns out was housing association stock, so if we're so desperate for social housing how can we leave a decent sized 1930's property empty so long?. Just keep on building is a very lazy & easy option to take.

As for my carbon footprint when I worked locally to E/Leigh rather than the other side of the forest as I do now, I did prefer to use my bike as it had the benefits of getting exercise into my day & was actually quicker than taking the car right across town too, which as you're right a few more of us should take heed of getting on our bikes for commutes on sunny days, as most people probably wouldn't ride in the rain or snow or work too far to commute comfortably by bike anyhow. I have looked at properties that have been converted from industrial / office space before buying my house & they were actually all very large & spacious & if they had had the secure parking for my car / bike I would've snapped one up but lack of parking was their main drawback if you're a private or a social housing resident that would affect you unfortunately, but it's still an option I wouldn't rule out if my situation changed or as a short term emergency social housing option either, why let decent buildings sit idle if they are suitable for conversion?. I could move like you suggest & a few people seem to be from the increasing number of estate agent boards appearing in the area, but one of the major attractions for me was being on the edge of town with playing fields, farmland & parks on my doorstep. The same parkland that only a few years ago the council agreed NOT to build on & wanted to restore to its former glory as it was a Capability Brown designed landscape & too valuable to lose. It will be a shame to see all the football pitches, cricket grounds, golf ranges & park / farmland go from this area & it will be built on at some point but at least we live in a country where we can voice our opinions & say I don't or do like whats happening.
I bought a house in Baronsmead Southampton.
we were told there would be a few Social houses, we were expected to pay for the upkeep & maintenance of the park by said houses.
They then increased the amount of social housing going there & there would not be a park but a playground for the kids of the social housing quarter.
I sold up as soon as I could & I'm glad I did as the Kids keep wrecking the play area & the private residents have to pay more for new equipment.
What should happen is if an estate of private houses are going to be built the builders should build a designated amount of houses elsewhere for the local council.
if you could see the tip the residents have made of the social housing area you would see why I believe this
You seem to think of social housing tenants as some form of lower class and that is simply not true, there are good and bad in both sectors. What you are suggesting is segregation on the basis of housing choice, things are about to change under this government with regard to length of tenancies in social housing but it used to be a matter of choice whether you bought a house or got a council house and that was for as long as you wanted. There is nothing special about going into partnership with a bank for 25 years to put a roof over your head its just your choice it does not make you a better person, in fact i know people who have mortgages who wished they had a council house. The last figure that i heard was that E.B.C. had 6,000 on their housing waiting list alone if you think in terms of the whole country then you can get some idea of how many houses are needed. We are not short of land in this country just land where people want to live, we could debate all these issues for ever more but at the end of the day the root cause of all of this countries problems is overpopulation and that has caused so many problems like forcing people out of there home towns away from the family unit & its support.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]richieroo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]richieroo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!. The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse. & as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.[/p][/quote]Well hands up to you for having the guts to admit you are a nimby, but i have enough faith in our planning system to ensure that adequate provision is made with regard to infrastructure, if you are so worried about carbon footprints sell you car and get a bike then you won't have to queue in the traffic. I am sorry but your argument doesn't stack up its not just a case of whether its social housing or not we need both and as for your suggestion of converting offices into flats i don't think you would buy one or are you suggesting they would be good enough for social housing only. As you point out you have purchased your home so you always have the option to sell and move elsewhere.[/p][/quote]I disagree in your faith in the planning system when the Pirelli site is known locally as 'little Beiruit' amongst other names, none of them flattering & I have a friend on the as yet unfinished Lakeside development who has referred to it variously as like the Chatsworth estate on Shameless or at times like Brands Hatch. I myself live in a development where a little further down the road from me on one side of the road the houses have one parking space & across the road two spaces, same houses different parking needs, who decided that one?. One of the fields on this proposed site recently had planning permission refused for a school & one of the reasons apparently was it couldn't be build there due to its proximity to a 43" gas pipe that runs across the site... far too dangerous to site a school over it & yet now the same field can have 300 houses on it!?!. I agree that we need both private & social housing, but to keep building new homes on farmland as a large chunk of this site is, is madness. Where in 50 -100 years will we grow crops & animals to feed our ever increasing population if we keep covering all the farmland available with housing?. Also as I'm sure you've seen there are thousands of empty properties across the country we should be doing more to get them back into use especially the ones that were emptied by the last government for redevelopment that never happened. We also had here until very recently a three bed house locally that sat empty & boarded up for in excess of five years (anyone whose driven on Nightingale Ave will know the house I mean) which it turns out was housing association stock, so if we're so desperate for social housing how can we leave a decent sized 1930's property empty so long?. Just keep on building is a very lazy & easy option to take. As for my carbon footprint when I worked locally to E/Leigh rather than the other side of the forest as I do now, I did prefer to use my bike as it had the benefits of getting exercise into my day & was actually quicker than taking the car right across town too, which as you're right a few more of us should take heed of getting on our bikes for commutes on sunny days, as most people probably wouldn't ride in the rain or snow or work too far to commute comfortably by bike anyhow. I have looked at properties that have been converted from industrial / office space before buying my house & they were actually all very large & spacious & if they had had the secure parking for my car / bike I would've snapped one up but lack of parking was their main drawback if you're a private or a social housing resident that would affect you unfortunately, but it's still an option I wouldn't rule out if my situation changed or as a short term emergency social housing option either, why let decent buildings sit idle if they are suitable for conversion?. I could move like you suggest & a few people seem to be from the increasing number of estate agent boards appearing in the area, but one of the major attractions for me was being on the edge of town with playing fields, farmland & parks on my doorstep. The same parkland that only a few years ago the council agreed NOT to build on & wanted to restore to its former glory as it was a Capability Brown designed landscape & too valuable to lose. It will be a shame to see all the football pitches, cricket grounds, golf ranges & park / farmland go from this area & it will be built on at some point but at least we live in a country where we can voice our opinions & say I don't or do like whats happening.[/p][/quote]I bought a house in Baronsmead Southampton. we were told there would be a few Social houses, we were expected to pay for the upkeep & maintenance of the park by said houses. They then increased the amount of social housing going there & there would not be a park but a playground for the kids of the social housing quarter. I sold up as soon as I could & I'm glad I did as the Kids keep wrecking the play area & the private residents have to pay more for new equipment. What should happen is if an estate of private houses are going to be built the builders should build a designated amount of houses elsewhere for the local council. if you could see the tip the residents have made of the social housing area you would see why I believe this[/p][/quote]You seem to think of social housing tenants as some form of lower class and that is simply not true, there are good and bad in both sectors. What you are suggesting is segregation on the basis of housing choice, things are about to change under this government with regard to length of tenancies in social housing but it used to be a matter of choice whether you bought a house or got a council house and that was for as long as you wanted. There is nothing special about going into partnership with a bank for 25 years to put a roof over your head its just your choice it does not make you a better person, in fact i know people who have mortgages who wished they had a council house. The last figure that i heard was that E.B.C. had 6,000 on their housing waiting list alone if you think in terms of the whole country then you can get some idea of how many houses are needed. We are not short of land in this country just land where people want to live, we could debate all these issues for ever more but at the end of the day the root cause of all of this countries problems is overpopulation and that has caused so many problems like forcing people out of there home towns away from the family unit & its support. ohec
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Tue 5 Jun 12

loosehead says...

ohec wrote:
loosehead wrote:
richieroo wrote:
ohec wrote:
richieroo wrote:
ohec wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!. The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse. & as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.
Well hands up to you for having the guts to admit you are a nimby, but i have enough faith in our planning system to ensure that adequate provision is made with regard to infrastructure, if you are so worried about carbon footprints sell you car and get a bike then you won't have to queue in the traffic. I am sorry but your argument doesn't stack up its not just a case of whether its social housing or not we need both and as for your suggestion of converting offices into flats i don't think you would buy one or are you suggesting they would be good enough for social housing only. As you point out you have purchased your home so you always have the option to sell and move elsewhere.
I disagree in your faith in the planning system when the Pirelli site is known locally as 'little Beiruit' amongst other names, none of them flattering & I have a friend on the as yet unfinished Lakeside development who has referred to it variously as like the Chatsworth estate on Shameless or at times like Brands Hatch. I myself live in a development where a little further down the road from me on one side of the road the houses have one parking space & across the road two spaces, same houses different parking needs, who decided that one?. One of the fields on this proposed site recently had planning permission refused for a school & one of the reasons apparently was it couldn't be build there due to its proximity to a 43" gas pipe that runs across the site... far too dangerous to site a school over it & yet now the same field can have 300 houses on it!?!.

I agree that we need both private & social housing, but to keep building new homes on farmland as a large chunk of this site is, is madness. Where in 50 -100 years will we grow crops & animals to feed our ever increasing population if we keep covering all the farmland available with housing?.

Also as I'm sure you've seen there are thousands of empty properties across the country we should be doing more to get them back into use especially the ones that were emptied by the last government for redevelopment that never happened. We also had here until very recently a three bed house locally that sat empty & boarded up for in excess of five years (anyone whose driven on Nightingale Ave will know the house I mean) which it turns out was housing association stock, so if we're so desperate for social housing how can we leave a decent sized 1930's property empty so long?. Just keep on building is a very lazy & easy option to take.

As for my carbon footprint when I worked locally to E/Leigh rather than the other side of the forest as I do now, I did prefer to use my bike as it had the benefits of getting exercise into my day & was actually quicker than taking the car right across town too, which as you're right a few more of us should take heed of getting on our bikes for commutes on sunny days, as most people probably wouldn't ride in the rain or snow or work too far to commute comfortably by bike anyhow. I have looked at properties that have been converted from industrial / office space before buying my house & they were actually all very large & spacious & if they had had the secure parking for my car / bike I would've snapped one up but lack of parking was their main drawback if you're a private or a social housing resident that would affect you unfortunately, but it's still an option I wouldn't rule out if my situation changed or as a short term emergency social housing option either, why let decent buildings sit idle if they are suitable for conversion?. I could move like you suggest & a few people seem to be from the increasing number of estate agent boards appearing in the area, but one of the major attractions for me was being on the edge of town with playing fields, farmland & parks on my doorstep. The same parkland that only a few years ago the council agreed NOT to build on & wanted to restore to its former glory as it was a Capability Brown designed landscape & too valuable to lose. It will be a shame to see all the football pitches, cricket grounds, golf ranges & park / farmland go from this area & it will be built on at some point but at least we live in a country where we can voice our opinions & say I don't or do like whats happening.
I bought a house in Baronsmead Southampton.
we were told there would be a few Social houses, we were expected to pay for the upkeep & maintenance of the park by said houses.
They then increased the amount of social housing going there & there would not be a park but a playground for the kids of the social housing quarter.
I sold up as soon as I could & I'm glad I did as the Kids keep wrecking the play area & the private residents have to pay more for new equipment.
What should happen is if an estate of private houses are going to be built the builders should build a designated amount of houses elsewhere for the local council.
if you could see the tip the residents have made of the social housing area you would see why I believe this
You seem to think of social housing tenants as some form of lower class and that is simply not true, there are good and bad in both sectors. What you are suggesting is segregation on the basis of housing choice, things are about to change under this government with regard to length of tenancies in social housing but it used to be a matter of choice whether you bought a house or got a council house and that was for as long as you wanted. There is nothing special about going into partnership with a bank for 25 years to put a roof over your head its just your choice it does not make you a better person, in fact i know people who have mortgages who wished they had a council house. The last figure that i heard was that E.B.C. had 6,000 on their housing waiting list alone if you think in terms of the whole country then you can get some idea of how many houses are needed. We are not short of land in this country just land where people want to live, we could debate all these issues for ever more but at the end of the day the root cause of all of this countries problems is overpopulation and that has caused so many problems like forcing people out of there home towns away from the family unit & its support.
Exactly where did I say they're lower class?
I came from a council house where my family(dad) took great pride in the house & garden & so did most tenants.they felt happy to get the houses .
you must be in a dream world if you think that it's the same now.
I've walked through the areas where social houses have been built alongside private & don't tell me you can't tell which is which.
In the past it was a blessing/honour to be able to live in a council home now they think it's a right no matter how much they earn & many expect everything to be done for them.
Not all are bad but those that are don't deserve a house & maybe we should put them in disused Army Barracks?
Why should a couple who have given up having children or going on holiday to get a deposit & buy a home have to subsidise someone who's just tipping old furniture & anything else the want on the green leaving the couple the bill to clear it?
many so called people in need go on holiday twice a year & have new cars yet can't afford to buy?
by building council homes in areas selected by the councils it will be down to the council to sort out the roten apples not be the burden on hard workers or be a smirch on the decent council tenants
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]richieroo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]richieroo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]Well ohec I went on the protest walk that day & I'm not ashamed of my feelings about it & yes I do have a very nice house thank you; that I own by saving for in excess of ten years to get a big enough deposit to be able to buy, rather than sitting on my backside expecting to be given one on a plate as some feel they are entitled to!. The problem I have with this plan is the fact that another 1300 MINIMUM houses in the Chestnut Ave /Stoneham Lane area means probably another 2600 cars on the two roads I've mentioned which are already at a standstill most days due to the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get in / out of Eastleigh, C Ford etc etc towards the M27 or Soton via them. The 'share your car half this queue' signs erected by the council tell their own story. & the fact that Soton, E/Leigh & Test Valley will develop this area as several smaller sites means they don't have to invest in the infrastructure as they would if it was one huge development which it will end up as sprawling both sides of the M27 eventually. I'm all for development if it's well thought out & done properly... but these roads wont get upgraded or improved & will only get worse. & as for desperately needed housing only a tiny percentage will end up as social housing so will hardly improve the situation for those who can't afford to buy as I've been lucky enough to do so. We have plenty of empty office blocks in the town that could be converted with a little thought & probably less of a carbon footprint than 1300 new builds & Hamble airfield is also another option within E/Leigh, but I'm sure we'll end up with the houses built here anyhow... it would probably be a different story if any of the councillors actually lived near here lol!.[/p][/quote]Well hands up to you for having the guts to admit you are a nimby, but i have enough faith in our planning system to ensure that adequate provision is made with regard to infrastructure, if you are so worried about carbon footprints sell you car and get a bike then you won't have to queue in the traffic. I am sorry but your argument doesn't stack up its not just a case of whether its social housing or not we need both and as for your suggestion of converting offices into flats i don't think you would buy one or are you suggesting they would be good enough for social housing only. As you point out you have purchased your home so you always have the option to sell and move elsewhere.[/p][/quote]I disagree in your faith in the planning system when the Pirelli site is known locally as 'little Beiruit' amongst other names, none of them flattering & I have a friend on the as yet unfinished Lakeside development who has referred to it variously as like the Chatsworth estate on Shameless or at times like Brands Hatch. I myself live in a development where a little further down the road from me on one side of the road the houses have one parking space & across the road two spaces, same houses different parking needs, who decided that one?. One of the fields on this proposed site recently had planning permission refused for a school & one of the reasons apparently was it couldn't be build there due to its proximity to a 43" gas pipe that runs across the site... far too dangerous to site a school over it & yet now the same field can have 300 houses on it!?!. I agree that we need both private & social housing, but to keep building new homes on farmland as a large chunk of this site is, is madness. Where in 50 -100 years will we grow crops & animals to feed our ever increasing population if we keep covering all the farmland available with housing?. Also as I'm sure you've seen there are thousands of empty properties across the country we should be doing more to get them back into use especially the ones that were emptied by the last government for redevelopment that never happened. We also had here until very recently a three bed house locally that sat empty & boarded up for in excess of five years (anyone whose driven on Nightingale Ave will know the house I mean) which it turns out was housing association stock, so if we're so desperate for social housing how can we leave a decent sized 1930's property empty so long?. Just keep on building is a very lazy & easy option to take. As for my carbon footprint when I worked locally to E/Leigh rather than the other side of the forest as I do now, I did prefer to use my bike as it had the benefits of getting exercise into my day & was actually quicker than taking the car right across town too, which as you're right a few more of us should take heed of getting on our bikes for commutes on sunny days, as most people probably wouldn't ride in the rain or snow or work too far to commute comfortably by bike anyhow. I have looked at properties that have been converted from industrial / office space before buying my house & they were actually all very large & spacious & if they had had the secure parking for my car / bike I would've snapped one up but lack of parking was their main drawback if you're a private or a social housing resident that would affect you unfortunately, but it's still an option I wouldn't rule out if my situation changed or as a short term emergency social housing option either, why let decent buildings sit idle if they are suitable for conversion?. I could move like you suggest & a few people seem to be from the increasing number of estate agent boards appearing in the area, but one of the major attractions for me was being on the edge of town with playing fields, farmland & parks on my doorstep. The same parkland that only a few years ago the council agreed NOT to build on & wanted to restore to its former glory as it was a Capability Brown designed landscape & too valuable to lose. It will be a shame to see all the football pitches, cricket grounds, golf ranges & park / farmland go from this area & it will be built on at some point but at least we live in a country where we can voice our opinions & say I don't or do like whats happening.[/p][/quote]I bought a house in Baronsmead Southampton. we were told there would be a few Social houses, we were expected to pay for the upkeep & maintenance of the park by said houses. They then increased the amount of social housing going there & there would not be a park but a playground for the kids of the social housing quarter. I sold up as soon as I could & I'm glad I did as the Kids keep wrecking the play area & the private residents have to pay more for new equipment. What should happen is if an estate of private houses are going to be built the builders should build a designated amount of houses elsewhere for the local council. if you could see the tip the residents have made of the social housing area you would see why I believe this[/p][/quote]You seem to think of social housing tenants as some form of lower class and that is simply not true, there are good and bad in both sectors. What you are suggesting is segregation on the basis of housing choice, things are about to change under this government with regard to length of tenancies in social housing but it used to be a matter of choice whether you bought a house or got a council house and that was for as long as you wanted. There is nothing special about going into partnership with a bank for 25 years to put a roof over your head its just your choice it does not make you a better person, in fact i know people who have mortgages who wished they had a council house. The last figure that i heard was that E.B.C. had 6,000 on their housing waiting list alone if you think in terms of the whole country then you can get some idea of how many houses are needed. We are not short of land in this country just land where people want to live, we could debate all these issues for ever more but at the end of the day the root cause of all of this countries problems is overpopulation and that has caused so many problems like forcing people out of there home towns away from the family unit & its support.[/p][/quote]Exactly where did I say they're lower class? I came from a council house where my family(dad) took great pride in the house & garden & so did most tenants.they felt happy to get the houses . you must be in a dream world if you think that it's the same now. I've walked through the areas where social houses have been built alongside private & don't tell me you can't tell which is which. In the past it was a blessing/honour to be able to live in a council home now they think it's a right no matter how much they earn & many expect everything to be done for them. Not all are bad but those that are don't deserve a house & maybe we should put them in disused Army Barracks? Why should a couple who have given up having children or going on holiday to get a deposit & buy a home have to subsidise someone who's just tipping old furniture & anything else the want on the green leaving the couple the bill to clear it? many so called people in need go on holiday twice a year & have new cars yet can't afford to buy? by building council homes in areas selected by the councils it will be down to the council to sort out the roten apples not be the burden on hard workers or be a smirch on the decent council tenants loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:02am Wed 6 Jun 12

ohec says...

What is needed in this country is a housing market that is a true reflection of peoples earnings and in order to get that we need a massive price crash to bring property down to realistic levels so they are affordable for many more people thus reducing the strain on the rental market, you also appear to have the British obsession of buying houses, the so-called property ladder that surprise surprise not everybody wants to get on as you say you made your choice to go without a family holidays or a new car to save for that magical deposit but others would sooner have children holidays and cars its all a matter of choice.
What is needed in this country is a housing market that is a true reflection of peoples earnings and in order to get that we need a massive price crash to bring property down to realistic levels so they are affordable for many more people thus reducing the strain on the rental market, you also appear to have the British obsession of buying houses, the so-called property ladder that surprise surprise not everybody wants to get on as you say you made your choice to go without a family holidays or a new car to save for that magical deposit but others would sooner have children holidays and cars its all a matter of choice. ohec
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Wed 6 Jun 12

loosehead says...

ohec wrote:
What is needed in this country is a housing market that is a true reflection of peoples earnings and in order to get that we need a massive price crash to bring property down to realistic levels so they are affordable for many more people thus reducing the strain on the rental market, you also appear to have the British obsession of buying houses, the so-called property ladder that surprise surprise not everybody wants to get on as you say you made your choice to go without a family holidays or a new car to save for that magical deposit but others would sooner have children holidays and cars its all a matter of choice.
No they would rather have the maintenance & modernisation done for them whilst they have brand new cars & two holidays plus smart phones,smart TV's & then if that's threatened they go to the food bank rather than buy food.
I know & anyone being honest knows Council/affordable housing was only ever intended for low paid working class people not well paid people who want to live the high life.
If you weeded out the ones who could quite easily afford to buy I wonder how large the housing waiting list would be?
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What is needed in this country is a housing market that is a true reflection of peoples earnings and in order to get that we need a massive price crash to bring property down to realistic levels so they are affordable for many more people thus reducing the strain on the rental market, you also appear to have the British obsession of buying houses, the so-called property ladder that surprise surprise not everybody wants to get on as you say you made your choice to go without a family holidays or a new car to save for that magical deposit but others would sooner have children holidays and cars its all a matter of choice.[/p][/quote]No they would rather have the maintenance & modernisation done for them whilst they have brand new cars & two holidays plus smart phones,smart TV's & then if that's threatened they go to the food bank rather than buy food. I know & anyone being honest knows Council/affordable housing was only ever intended for low paid working class people not well paid people who want to live the high life. If you weeded out the ones who could quite easily afford to buy I wonder how large the housing waiting list would be? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Thu 7 Jun 12

ohec says...

loosehead wrote:
ohec wrote:
What is needed in this country is a housing market that is a true reflection of peoples earnings and in order to get that we need a massive price crash to bring property down to realistic levels so they are affordable for many more people thus reducing the strain on the rental market, you also appear to have the British obsession of buying houses, the so-called property ladder that surprise surprise not everybody wants to get on as you say you made your choice to go without a family holidays or a new car to save for that magical deposit but others would sooner have children holidays and cars its all a matter of choice.
No they would rather have the maintenance & modernisation done for them whilst they have brand new cars & two holidays plus smart phones,smart TV's & then if that's threatened they go to the food bank rather than buy food.
I know & anyone being honest knows Council/affordable housing was only ever intended for low paid working class people not well paid people who want to live the high life.
If you weeded out the ones who could quite easily afford to buy I wonder how large the housing waiting list would be?
You are obsessed with this idea that everybody wants to buy houses, its not just a case of being able to afford to buy its a case of whether you want to, in most countries buying or renting is a matter of choice and choice alone this idea that the only people that rent are those that can't afford to buy is totally wrong. I grant you that the situation is about to change as far as social housing is concerned but that will only apply to new tenants where the proposal is for time limited leases, the whole concept that your best investment is bricks and mortar has run its time and more and more people will revert back to renting not just out of choice but house prices have reached unsustainable levels so the only way for them to go is down.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What is needed in this country is a housing market that is a true reflection of peoples earnings and in order to get that we need a massive price crash to bring property down to realistic levels so they are affordable for many more people thus reducing the strain on the rental market, you also appear to have the British obsession of buying houses, the so-called property ladder that surprise surprise not everybody wants to get on as you say you made your choice to go without a family holidays or a new car to save for that magical deposit but others would sooner have children holidays and cars its all a matter of choice.[/p][/quote]No they would rather have the maintenance & modernisation done for them whilst they have brand new cars & two holidays plus smart phones,smart TV's & then if that's threatened they go to the food bank rather than buy food. I know & anyone being honest knows Council/affordable housing was only ever intended for low paid working class people not well paid people who want to live the high life. If you weeded out the ones who could quite easily afford to buy I wonder how large the housing waiting list would be?[/p][/quote]You are obsessed with this idea that everybody wants to buy houses, its not just a case of being able to afford to buy its a case of whether you want to, in most countries buying or renting is a matter of choice and choice alone this idea that the only people that rent are those that can't afford to buy is totally wrong. I grant you that the situation is about to change as far as social housing is concerned but that will only apply to new tenants where the proposal is for time limited leases, the whole concept that your best investment is bricks and mortar has run its time and more and more people will revert back to renting not just out of choice but house prices have reached unsustainable levels so the only way for them to go is down. ohec
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Thu 7 Jun 12

loosehead says...

ohec wrote:
loosehead wrote:
ohec wrote:
What is needed in this country is a housing market that is a true reflection of peoples earnings and in order to get that we need a massive price crash to bring property down to realistic levels so they are affordable for many more people thus reducing the strain on the rental market, you also appear to have the British obsession of buying houses, the so-called property ladder that surprise surprise not everybody wants to get on as you say you made your choice to go without a family holidays or a new car to save for that magical deposit but others would sooner have children holidays and cars its all a matter of choice.
No they would rather have the maintenance & modernisation done for them whilst they have brand new cars & two holidays plus smart phones,smart TV's & then if that's threatened they go to the food bank rather than buy food.
I know & anyone being honest knows Council/affordable housing was only ever intended for low paid working class people not well paid people who want to live the high life.
If you weeded out the ones who could quite easily afford to buy I wonder how large the housing waiting list would be?
You are obsessed with this idea that everybody wants to buy houses, its not just a case of being able to afford to buy its a case of whether you want to, in most countries buying or renting is a matter of choice and choice alone this idea that the only people that rent are those that can't afford to buy is totally wrong. I grant you that the situation is about to change as far as social housing is concerned but that will only apply to new tenants where the proposal is for time limited leases, the whole concept that your best investment is bricks and mortar has run its time and more and more people will revert back to renting not just out of choice but house prices have reached unsustainable levels so the only way for them to go is down.
Please read this post! COUNCIL hoses are there for people WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY.
this was why they were created & not for THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO BUY.
why should a couple both working in Sainsbury's get stuck in flats say top floor with children yet a family on good money live in a council home ?
they should be in private housing & council homes should be for the low paid.
Could a Labour supporter say Linesman or Lone Ranger comment on his subject?
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What is needed in this country is a housing market that is a true reflection of peoples earnings and in order to get that we need a massive price crash to bring property down to realistic levels so they are affordable for many more people thus reducing the strain on the rental market, you also appear to have the British obsession of buying houses, the so-called property ladder that surprise surprise not everybody wants to get on as you say you made your choice to go without a family holidays or a new car to save for that magical deposit but others would sooner have children holidays and cars its all a matter of choice.[/p][/quote]No they would rather have the maintenance & modernisation done for them whilst they have brand new cars & two holidays plus smart phones,smart TV's & then if that's threatened they go to the food bank rather than buy food. I know & anyone being honest knows Council/affordable housing was only ever intended for low paid working class people not well paid people who want to live the high life. If you weeded out the ones who could quite easily afford to buy I wonder how large the housing waiting list would be?[/p][/quote]You are obsessed with this idea that everybody wants to buy houses, its not just a case of being able to afford to buy its a case of whether you want to, in most countries buying or renting is a matter of choice and choice alone this idea that the only people that rent are those that can't afford to buy is totally wrong. I grant you that the situation is about to change as far as social housing is concerned but that will only apply to new tenants where the proposal is for time limited leases, the whole concept that your best investment is bricks and mortar has run its time and more and more people will revert back to renting not just out of choice but house prices have reached unsustainable levels so the only way for them to go is down.[/p][/quote]Please read this post! COUNCIL hoses are there for people WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY. this was why they were created & not for THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO BUY. why should a couple both working in Sainsbury's get stuck in flats say top floor with children yet a family on good money live in a council home ? they should be in private housing & council homes should be for the low paid. Could a Labour supporter say Linesman or Lone Ranger comment on his subject? loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Thu 7 Jun 12

ohec says...

You are still hooked on this idea that people should buy property (WHY) as i have pointed out before the government propose to change the regulations in respect of social housing but the majority of tenants are secure at the moment as a lot are assured and many have the right to buy. Your confusion seems to arise from the changes that have taken place in our country over the last 40/50 years and your age,years ago only the better off in society bought houses they were also the only ones that had cars or went to Spain on holiday, so unless you fitted into that bracket you went on the housing list, now everybody has cars goes on holiday to Spain and elsewhere, and there are no council houses anymore thanks to Margaret Thatcher who sold off a lot of our housing stock and said everybody has the right to own their own home, but she neglected to say if they can afford it.So social housing will change to limited leases instead of the old system of a house for life.
You are still hooked on this idea that people should buy property (WHY) as i have pointed out before the government propose to change the regulations in respect of social housing but the majority of tenants are secure at the moment as a lot are assured and many have the right to buy. Your confusion seems to arise from the changes that have taken place in our country over the last 40/50 years and your age,years ago only the better off in society bought houses they were also the only ones that had cars or went to Spain on holiday, so unless you fitted into that bracket you went on the housing list, now everybody has cars goes on holiday to Spain and elsewhere, and there are no council houses anymore thanks to Margaret Thatcher who sold off a lot of our housing stock and said everybody has the right to own their own home, but she neglected to say if they can afford it.So social housing will change to limited leases instead of the old system of a house for life. ohec
  • Score: 0

10:21am Tue 12 Jun 12

sburman says...

ohec wrote:
What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.
Here! Here!

Nimby's one and all. It all about there quality of living ( mostly there house values ) and s*d the rest.

In's the same old story. He who shouts loudest gets most attention - and while we are at it can somebody tell me what the h*ll is wrong with Wind Turbines. There free energy, modern ones are a lot more quiet, they look peaceful and inkeeping with the landscape ( when they are bedded in ).
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: What a shame that people have to be so selfish and that is what it all boils down too,the not in my back yard or the thats where i walk my dog and so on, and these people are so ashamed of their own feelings they then try to conceal the fact by talking about boundaries or some other rubbish. The fact that these houses are desperately needed is neither here nor there as long as the protesters already have a nice house, the fact that no councillors turned up say's it all as long as you sit ON the fence you can't get into any trouble.[/p][/quote]Here! Here! Nimby's one and all. It all about there quality of living ( mostly there house values ) and s*d the rest. In's the same old story. He who shouts loudest gets most attention - and while we are at it can somebody tell me what the h*ll is wrong with Wind Turbines. There free energy, modern ones are a lot more quiet, they look peaceful and inkeeping with the landscape ( when they are bedded in ). sburman
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Tue 12 Jun 12

loosehead says...

ohec wrote:
You are still hooked on this idea that people should buy property (WHY) as i have pointed out before the government propose to change the regulations in respect of social housing but the majority of tenants are secure at the moment as a lot are assured and many have the right to buy. Your confusion seems to arise from the changes that have taken place in our country over the last 40/50 years and your age,years ago only the better off in society bought houses they were also the only ones that had cars or went to Spain on holiday, so unless you fitted into that bracket you went on the housing list, now everybody has cars goes on holiday to Spain and elsewhere, and there are no council houses anymore thanks to Margaret Thatcher who sold off a lot of our housing stock and said everybody has the right to own their own home, but she neglected to say if they can afford it.So social housing will change to limited leases instead of the old system of a house for life.
Who bought the council houses?
As I've tried to point out I have nothing against people who live in council/social housing.
I am against those who move into a house which is in good repair & the area looks great & they use the surrounding area as a rubbish tip.
or they smash their doors & in a short period of time the place is a wreck.
This is not fair to their neighbours who look after their property & gives them all a bad reputation.
there should be conditions set & if they fail maybe we should go back to the 50's & set up Hostels to house them until they can agree to look after a home better & if they don't three strikes & it's hostel living for you unless you buy or rent privately.
I'm not a NIMBY I live in Lordshill which is a mix of private & council homes & besides a very few you would find it hard to know which is which as those tenants care for where & what they live in
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: You are still hooked on this idea that people should buy property (WHY) as i have pointed out before the government propose to change the regulations in respect of social housing but the majority of tenants are secure at the moment as a lot are assured and many have the right to buy. Your confusion seems to arise from the changes that have taken place in our country over the last 40/50 years and your age,years ago only the better off in society bought houses they were also the only ones that had cars or went to Spain on holiday, so unless you fitted into that bracket you went on the housing list, now everybody has cars goes on holiday to Spain and elsewhere, and there are no council houses anymore thanks to Margaret Thatcher who sold off a lot of our housing stock and said everybody has the right to own their own home, but she neglected to say if they can afford it.So social housing will change to limited leases instead of the old system of a house for life.[/p][/quote]Who bought the council houses? As I've tried to point out I have nothing against people who live in council/social housing. I am against those who move into a house which is in good repair & the area looks great & they use the surrounding area as a rubbish tip. or they smash their doors & in a short period of time the place is a wreck. This is not fair to their neighbours who look after their property & gives them all a bad reputation. there should be conditions set & if they fail maybe we should go back to the 50's & set up Hostels to house them until they can agree to look after a home better & if they don't three strikes & it's hostel living for you unless you buy or rent privately. I'm not a NIMBY I live in Lordshill which is a mix of private & council homes & besides a very few you would find it hard to know which is which as those tenants care for where & what they live in loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:06am Wed 13 Jun 12

sburman says...

If it’s a choice of somewhere to walk your dog against somewhere for my grandchildren to live in years to come then you will have to walk your dog someplace else I’m afraid.
If it’s a choice of somewhere to walk your dog against somewhere for my grandchildren to live in years to come then you will have to walk your dog someplace else I’m afraid. sburman
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree