£100m scheme for estate put on hold (From Daily Echo)

Labour are all about control, let the people have what they want.
Labour know what you want, they know best about everything.

Common sense at last with all these's so called new builds was just away for getting rid of council homes and giving them to HA. Tories just wanted to sell of everything, look at CCTV system they quickly got rid of, next its all the council homes. Keep affordable home for people with low wages, HA are too expensive.

A total disaster for Southampton. There are families out there desperate to BUY homes, not be tied to renting. I notice that most of the Labour councillors OWN their own homes yet we're seeing them denying that chance to others. Townhill Park is an area that had the potential to become a nice suburb if the number of properties to buy increases. Already most of the houses were sold under Right to Buy in the 80's. Also interesting to note that the area is within a Tory ward.

knock them down and return them to countryside.

PhoenixLives wrote:
Common sense at last with all these's so called new builds was just away for getting rid of council homes and giving them to HA. Tories just wanted to sell of everything, look at CCTV system they quickly got rid of, next its all the council homes. Keep affordable home for people with low wages, HA are too expensive.

The thing is these blocks of flats are already boarded up and have been for the last 2 years, I cannot see how that benefits anyone, there should at least be people living in them if they do put the scheme on hold.
This is just typical of Labour, they neglected the city for years, all they want to do is give money to council staff.

Where's your evidence that there are families out there DESPERATE to buy homes? The single biggest issue is affordability and being able to secure the finance. The housing crisis will be solved by more affordable, lower rents for working people that can"t raise deposits for 85 or 90 per cent mortgages - this is not something that you will get from the private sector.

Condor Man wrote:
A total disaster for Southampton. There are families out there desperate to BUY homes, not be tied to renting. I notice that most of the Labour councillors OWN their own homes yet we're seeing them denying that chance to others. Townhill Park is an area that had the potential to become a nice suburb if the number of properties to buy increases. Already most of the houses were sold under Right to Buy in the 80's. Also interesting to note that the area is within a Tory ward.

Is this a joke post?

Wizard, not everyone wants to rent a property from the Council. In fact, most people in Southampton don't- most have mortgages or own outright.

Condor Man wrote:
Wizard, not everyone wants to rent a property from the Council. In fact, most people in Southampton don't- most have mortgages or own outright.

But SCC are still the 3rd biggest social landlord in the country.

I'm puzzled, not for the first time, by Condor Man. He says that Townhill Park could become nice suburb if there are more properties to buy. And then he says most of the houses were sold in the 80s. So, by that logic, Townhill Park is already a nice suburb.

Or is he saying that the remaining flats should be demolished and replaced with houses to sell. If so, where does he propose the people living in the flats go to live if they can't afford to buy the nice new houses?

I haven't looked at what the proposals for Townhill Park were. They may well make sense but it's only reasonable that a new administration takes a few weeks to look them over before committing to them.

Perhaps we should asking why the previous administration, which must have known it was going to lose power since the last City elections, entered into deals like this and others like the one on CCTV knowing that they would not be in charge when they had to be paid for?

Labour starting what they mean to continue... to restrain progress, uphold under-achievment, celebrate mediocraty and promote stagnation. The turkeys of southampton voted for christmas !!

Nice one MGRA
Obviously residents didnt like the Tory proposals and voted Labour for a cancellation. They got what they voted for. hahaha

Condor Man wrote:
A total disaster for Southampton. There are families out there desperate to BUY homes, not be tied to renting. I notice that most of the Labour councillors OWN their own homes yet we're seeing them denying that chance to others. Townhill Park is an area that had the potential to become a nice suburb if the number of properties to buy increases. Already most of the houses were sold under Right to Buy in the 80's. Also interesting to note that the area is within a Tory ward.

There are plenty of houses up for sale, so the opportunity is there for them.

I see no reason why someone living in a council house, paid for out of council tax, should have the right to buy it at a knock-down price, and sell it at the market price a few years later.

Council houses should be let for a certain period - maybe 10 years. In that time, with an economic rent, the tennants should have time to save a deposit to put down on a house on the open market, freeing up the council house for another young family.

Has anybody, especially Adrian Beecroft, looked at how the mortgage companies will view lending to someone who may lose their job at the whim of an employer? That is, all of us, if Tory donor Beecroft's proposals are adopted.

Of course, if we can all be hired and fired at will, more of us will need payday loans at over 1200% interest from companies like Wonga - set up by, oh, Adrian Beecroft.

Ford Prefect, areas with solely social housing benefit no one. Shops and businesses struggle due to the low incomes of local residents and areas become blighted. An influx of people from different backgrounds helps areas to develop and prosper. I'd have thought a wealthy man like Williams would have understood that.

A very common sense approach by the Labour Council.
.
Just checking to make sure that the City has not been STITCHED UP again by the outgoing Tories.
.
Decision in July ...... Common sense prevails .......... despite the ramblings of Bailie and co

I work hard to pay for my house, because I dont want to live in a dirty run down area. if they do the area up and keep handing out benefits and nice shinley new houses wheres the encentive to get a job?

Yes Condor Man but if, as you say, most of the houses in Townhill Park were sold off thirty years ago, surely it is already not an area exclusively social housing? Unless you're proposing that only owner-occupiers should live there. In which case, where do the people go who aren't able to buy?

Linesman wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
A total disaster for Southampton. There are families out there desperate to BUY homes, not be tied to renting. I notice that most of the Labour councillors OWN their own homes yet we're seeing them denying that chance to others. Townhill Park is an area that had the potential to become a nice suburb if the number of properties to buy increases. Already most of the houses were sold under Right to Buy in the 80's. Also interesting to note that the area is within a Tory ward.

There are plenty of houses up for sale, so the opportunity is there for them.

I see no reason why someone living in a council house, paid for out of council tax, should have the right to buy it at a knock-down price, and sell it at the market price a few years later.

Council houses should be let for a certain period - maybe 10 years. In that time, with an economic rent, the tennants should have time to save a deposit to put down on a house on the open market, freeing up the council house for another young family.

As Southy found a way to buy his council house before Margaret Thatcher even introduced the Right to Buy scheme, perhaps he ought to give you an answer. This is the same socialist who boasts of retiring early after having made enough from his business to never work again. The fact that he devotes his time trying to prevent others from doing the same is neither here nor there.

You can change the area but you cant change the people.

Well, you wanted them in, you got them. How do you think the new Labour council will restore the wages of the council workers otherwise, its got to come from somewhere.

G0Rf wrote:
I work hard to pay for my house, because I dont want to live in a dirty run down area. if they do the area up and keep handing out benefits and nice shinley new houses wheres the encentive to get a job?

Everyone knows working is a mugs game, 50 years graft and then you die, great life.

MGRA wrote:
Labour starting what they mean to continue... to restrain progress, uphold under-achievment, celebrate mediocraty and promote stagnation. The turkeys of southampton voted for christmas !!

Correct! It will be a repeat of when they last held sway at SCC.
>
Labour deliberate and deliberate and talk and talk and talk and talk and by the time it comes to making a watered down decision all those in the process have run for cover!
>
Once you spook developers/investors you put them on notice that the project will be delayed indefinitely. Are those same developers/investors going to hang around waiting for SCC or develop/invest elsewhere?
>
Labour ideology hinders the progress of the very people they are supposed to represent. Southampton got left behind by the last Labour councils - time stood still in the City of Southampton for 25 years.
>
Unfortunately, Southampton suffers from the days of Union aggro and a reputation for trouble - it's still in the genes of some people and it drags Southampton down. Look around, everywhere outside Southampton (Hampshire/Dorset/Su
ssex/Berkshire etc) has prospered and progressed far more than we have!

So many idealistic views here; I work and I am a SCC tennant I pay for everything out of my salary which isan't huge and therefore dosen't allow for saving huge amounts of money for a mortgage deposit or legal fees. I also wouldn't get enough mortgage lend to afford a property even on shared ownership. So being i put into the tax pot paying for those that choose not to work or struggle to find work, I pay full rent & C tax (-25%) would it be fair based on my level of earnings to say that in 2 years time i am expected to vacate my SCC property and buy, when clearly I can't & can't afford private landlord rent. IMO it's the genuine people who suffer the worst as the no hopers and spongers just get the golden hand out..

The last Tory council STITCHED up the residents of Southampton with a £500m CCTV contract which they signed out of spite a day or two before they left office.
.
They will potentially cost the taxpayers of Southampton £12m on their poor management of the industrial action that a certain ( now ) councillor instigated.
.
In addition the outgoing Tories used £10m of taxpayers money to finance the Sea Museum ..... which they guaranteed that they would not do.
.
So with that style of track record it is imperrative that any current deals that the Tories have instigated should be gone threw with a fine tooth comb.
.
I hope that Labour protect this City from chancers and Ego maniacs from the useless Tories and that every deal is scrutinised.
.

“There’s a big lobby within Labour who don’t like the idea of selling off council land” says Tory Peter Baillie
.
Instinctively I do not trust Tories, BUT hope for a change he is telling the truth
.
If that lobby really exists I wish people involved every success against right-wingers who have hijacked the party of decent and honest working people
.
Conservatives and rightwing NuLabourites are very good at coming up with seductively plausible excuses for handing over public prosperities, in this case homes of people, to their profiteering super greedy friends; Often well connected sharks masquerading under the titles of Housing Association, who pretend to provide ‘Social Housing’… a stinking system which is democratically unaccountable
.
As everybody can’t afford to buy their own house, or to be exact have a huge big mill stone around their necks otherwise known as mortgage, unless they happen to be super rich who pay less tax than cleaners in their offices, we as civilised society should cater for that group’s need
.
Best method to meet that requirement was to build ‘Council Housing’. Even Tory Prime Minister McMillan believed in that sensible approach, that is why during his term thousands of Council Houses were built
.
Brats of Thatcher who now dominate party of McMillan and slippery slimy rightwing Closet Conservatives who dominate NuLabour should be reading the history of their own former leaders like McMillan and Attlee. Shame on those who refuse to do that

Condor Man wrote:
Wizard, not everyone wants to rent a property from the Council. In fact, most people in Southampton don't- most have mortgages or own outright.

Evidence please?

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
“There’s a big lobby within Labour who don’t like the idea of selling off council land” says Tory Peter Baillie
.
Instinctively I do not trust Tories, BUT hope for a change he is telling the truth
.
If that lobby really exists I wish people involved every success against right-wingers who have hijacked the party of decent and honest working people
.
Conservatives and rightwing NuLabourites are very good at coming up with seductively plausible excuses for handing over public prosperities, in this case homes of people, to their profiteering super greedy friends; Often well connected sharks masquerading under the titles of Housing Association, who pretend to provide ‘Social Housing’… a stinking system which is democratically unaccountable
.
As everybody can’t afford to buy their own house, or to be exact have a huge big mill stone around their necks otherwise known as mortgage, unless they happen to be super rich who pay less tax than cleaners in their offices, we as civilised society should cater for that group’s need
.
Best method to meet that requirement was to build ‘Council Housing’. Even Tory Prime Minister McMillan believed in that sensible approach, that is why during his term thousands of Council Houses were built
.
Brats of Thatcher who now dominate party of McMillan and slippery slimy rightwing Closet Conservatives who dominate NuLabour should be reading the history of their own former leaders like McMillan and Attlee. Shame on those who refuse to do that

do you live in the same century as the rest of us !?

MGRA wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
“There’s a big lobby within Labour who don’t like the idea of selling off council land” says Tory Peter Baillie
.
Instinctively I do not trust Tories, BUT hope for a change he is telling the truth
.
If that lobby really exists I wish people involved every success against right-wingers who have hijacked the party of decent and honest working people
.
Conservatives and rightwing NuLabourites are very good at coming up with seductively plausible excuses for handing over public prosperities, in this case homes of people, to their profiteering super greedy friends; Often well connected sharks masquerading under the titles of Housing Association, who pretend to provide ‘Social Housing’… a stinking system which is democratically unaccountable
.
As everybody can’t afford to buy their own house, or to be exact have a huge big mill stone around their necks otherwise known as mortgage, unless they happen to be super rich who pay less tax than cleaners in their offices, we as civilised society should cater for that group’s need
.
Best method to meet that requirement was to build ‘Council Housing’. Even Tory Prime Minister McMillan believed in that sensible approach, that is why during his term thousands of Council Houses were built
.
Brats of Thatcher who now dominate party of McMillan and slippery slimy rightwing Closet Conservatives who dominate NuLabour should be reading the history of their own former leaders like McMillan and Attlee. Shame on those who refuse to do that

do you live in the same century as the rest of us !?

Wherever but certainly not in your bloody fools paradise

George4th wrote:

MGRA wrote:
Labour starting what they mean to continue... to restrain progress, uphold under-achievment, celebrate mediocraty and promote stagnation. The turkeys of southampton voted for christmas !!

Correct! It will be a repeat of when they last held sway at SCC.
>
Labour deliberate and deliberate and talk and talk and talk and talk and by the time it comes to making a watered down decision all those in the process have run for cover!
>
Once you spook developers/investors you put them on notice that the project will be delayed indefinitely. Are those same developers/investors going to hang around waiting for SCC or develop/invest elsewhere?
>
Labour ideology hinders the progress of the very people they are supposed to represent. Southampton got left behind by the last Labour councils - time stood still in the City of Southampton for 25 years.
>
Unfortunately, Southampton suffers from the days of Union aggro and a reputation for trouble - it's still in the genes of some people and it drags Southampton down. Look around, everywhere outside Southampton (Hampshire/Dorset/Su

ssex/Berkshire etc) has prospered and progressed far more than we have!

I wish you Peter Baillie would stop scaremongering, of course the developers will wait, for simple fact that funding (PUSH) for developments like this is for specific areas only, in this case Townhill, similar developments have been delayed, take Thornhill for instance there was delay there at the start of the project, some 6 months if I'm not mistaken, the developer and housing association stayed on board and the development went ahead.

Its in the councils best interests to allow regeneration programme like this to go ahead, I do think taking to reflect on the whole project is sensible, if there are saving to be made or if a cheaper alternative can be found, then in these times of Tory inflicted austerity, its best to so.

Having said that the residents/tenants have been consulted and the proposal have been approved by them, so the new council really need to ensure the development happens.

To me its a no brainer, offloading run down council accommodation and replacing it with new builds brings a community back to life, regardless of own the homes, Housing association, Council (by the way, all councils will be bringing the rents in line with housing associations soon anyway) or private.



I think

Over the Edge wrote:

George4th wrote:

MGRA wrote:
Labour starting what they mean to continue... to restrain progress, uphold under-achievment, celebrate mediocraty and promote stagnation. The turkeys of southampton voted for christmas !!

Correct! It will be a repeat of when they last held sway at SCC.
>
Labour deliberate and deliberate and talk and talk and talk and talk and by the time it comes to making a watered down decision all those in the process have run for cover!
>
Once you spook developers/investors you put them on notice that the project will be delayed indefinitely. Are those same developers/investors going to hang around waiting for SCC or develop/invest elsewhere?
>
Labour ideology hinders the progress of the very people they are supposed to represent. Southampton got left behind by the last Labour councils - time stood still in the City of Southampton for 25 years.
>
Unfortunately, Southampton suffers from the days of Union aggro and a reputation for trouble - it's still in the genes of some people and it drags Southampton down. Look around, everywhere outside Southampton (Hampshire/Dorset/Su


ssex/Berkshire etc) has prospered and progressed far more than we have!

I wish you Peter Baillie would stop scaremongering, of course the developers will wait, for simple fact that funding (PUSH) for developments like this is for specific areas only, in this case Townhill, similar developments have been delayed, take Thornhill for instance there was delay there at the start of the project, some 6 months if I'm not mistaken, the developer and housing association stayed on board and the development went ahead.

Its in the councils best interests to allow regeneration programme like this to go ahead, I do think taking to reflect on the whole project is sensible, if there are saving to be made or if a cheaper alternative can be found, then in these times of Tory inflicted austerity, its best to so.

Having said that the residents/tenants have been consulted and the proposal have been approved by them, so the new council really need to ensure the development happens.

To me its a no brainer, offloading run down council accommodation and replacing it with new builds brings a community back to life, regardless of own the homes, Housing association, Council (by the way, all councils will be bringing the rents in line with housing associations soon anyway) or private.



I think

"I do think taking to reflect on the whole project is sensible, if there are saving to be made or if a cheaper alternative can be found, then in these times of Tory inflicted austerity, its best to so. "

What is there to think about?! The SCC executives/senior management and everyone else concerned including the residents have said to go ahead!
>
The only possible reason for a delay is so that the new Labour council can say "we gave the final go ahead"!!
>
My money is on further delay..........

PaddyDucks wrote:
Nice one MGRA Obviously residents didnt like the Tory proposals and voted Labour for a cancellation. They got what they voted for. hahaha

Actually 70% didn't bother to vote and couldn't care less what happens.

Good afternoon Lone Ranger, if the Unions believe they can get £12m from the council, why are they not taking action now ?

Lone Ranger. wrote:
The last Tory council STITCHED up the residents of Southampton with a £500m CCTV contract which they signed out of spite a day or two before they left office.
.
They will potentially cost the taxpayers of Southampton £12m on their poor management of the industrial action that a certain ( now ) councillor instigated.
.
In addition the outgoing Tories used £10m of taxpayers money to finance the Sea Museum ..... which they guaranteed that they would not do.
.
So with that style of track record it is imperrative that any current deals that the Tories have instigated should be gone threw with a fine tooth comb.
.
I hope that Labour protect this City from chancers and Ego maniacs from the useless Tories and that every deal is scrutinised.
.

So Labour will go through with a fine tooth comb?
How about getting the same union members who knocked doors telling/asking people to vote Labour to knock doors show the plans for the estate.
Tell them even though these will be HA houses any resident who wishes to buy will get first go at buying the houses for sale & ask them if they want the development or not?
Surely this would be the people speaking either way wont it?

Over the Edge wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
Wizard, not everyone wants to rent a property from the Council. In fact, most people in Southampton don't- most have mortgages or own outright.

Evidence please?

over half the houses in Southampton are privately owned, less than 25% are SCC. Source, SCC

I dont think that once again you really read my post.
.
I did NOT say that Labour WILL go through it with a fine tooth comb ....... I said THEY SHOULD.
.
Ok go and ask the unions to knock on doors !!!! ........ Once again i find it difficult to understand what your idea is here !!!! ???

I thought Labour wanted increased infrastructure spending and more apprentices to boost youth employment?

Surely this scheme is right up their street?

PhoenixLives wrote:
Common sense at last with all these's so called new builds was just away for getting rid of council homes and giving them to HA. Tories just wanted to sell of everything, look at CCTV system they quickly got rid of, next its all the council homes. Keep affordable home for people with low wages, HA are too expensive.

at last common sense exists.

How is it common sense bigbor to stop a construction project when Labour have called for economic stimulus?

George4th wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:

George4th wrote:

MGRA wrote:
Labour starting what they mean to continue... to restrain progress, uphold under-achievment, celebrate mediocraty and promote stagnation. The turkeys of southampton voted for christmas !!

Correct! It will be a repeat of when they last held sway at SCC.
>
Labour deliberate and deliberate and talk and talk and talk and talk and by the time it comes to making a watered down decision all those in the process have run for cover!
>
Once you spook developers/investors you put them on notice that the project will be delayed indefinitely. Are those same developers/investors going to hang around waiting for SCC or develop/invest elsewhere?
>
Labour ideology hinders the progress of the very people they are supposed to represent. Southampton got left behind by the last Labour councils - time stood still in the City of Southampton for 25 years.
>
Unfortunately, Southampton suffers from the days of Union aggro and a reputation for trouble - it's still in the genes of some people and it drags Southampton down. Look around, everywhere outside Southampton (Hampshire/Dorset/Su



ssex/Berkshire etc) has prospered and progressed far more than we have!

I wish you Peter Baillie would stop scaremongering, of course the developers will wait, for simple fact that funding (PUSH) for developments like this is for specific areas only, in this case Townhill, similar developments have been delayed, take Thornhill for instance there was delay there at the start of the project, some 6 months if I'm not mistaken, the developer and housing association stayed on board and the development went ahead.

Its in the councils best interests to allow regeneration programme like this to go ahead, I do think taking to reflect on the whole project is sensible, if there are saving to be made or if a cheaper alternative can be found, then in these times of Tory inflicted austerity, its best to so.

Having said that the residents/tenants have been consulted and the proposal have been approved by them, so the new council really need to ensure the development happens.

To me its a no brainer, offloading run down council accommodation and replacing it with new builds brings a community back to life, regardless of own the homes, Housing association, Council (by the way, all councils will be bringing the rents in line with housing associations soon anyway) or private.



I think

"I do think taking to reflect on the whole project is sensible, if there are saving to be made or if a cheaper alternative can be found, then in these times of Tory inflicted austerity, its best to so. "

What is there to think about?! The SCC executives/senior management and everyone else concerned including the residents have said to go ahead!
>
The only possible reason for a delay is so that the new Labour council can say "we gave the final go ahead"!!
>
My money is on further delay..........

A bit like the last Tory council saying that they regenerated Thornhill, when in fact the £48,7 million was given to the community by the last Government, the Tory council role to act as the accountable body, creaming of millions in interest because the money was held in the account and applying for funding to run there better homes project to the tune of £7 million plus loads more, Neighbourhood wardens, tidy team and lots more.

Pot kettle black, I think George

Over the Edge wrote:

George4th wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:

George4th wrote:

MGRA wrote:
Labour starting what they mean to continue... to restrain progress, uphold under-achievment, celebrate mediocraty and promote stagnation. The turkeys of southampton voted for christmas !!

Correct! It will be a repeat of when they last held sway at SCC.
>
Labour deliberate and deliberate and talk and talk and talk and talk and by the time it comes to making a watered down decision all those in the process have run for cover!
>
Once you spook developers/investors you put them on notice that the project will be delayed indefinitely. Are those same developers/investors going to hang around waiting for SCC or develop/invest elsewhere?
>
Labour ideology hinders the progress of the very people they are supposed to represent. Southampton got left behind by the last Labour councils - time stood still in the City of Southampton for 25 years.
>
Unfortunately, Southampton suffers from the days of Union aggro and a reputation for trouble - it's still in the genes of some people and it drags Southampton down. Look around, everywhere outside Southampton (Hampshire/Dorset/Su




ssex/Berkshire etc) has prospered and progressed far more than we have!

I wish you Peter Baillie would stop scaremongering, of course the developers will wait, for simple fact that funding (PUSH) for developments like this is for specific areas only, in this case Townhill, similar developments have been delayed, take Thornhill for instance there was delay there at the start of the project, some 6 months if I'm not mistaken, the developer and housing association stayed on board and the development went ahead.

Its in the councils best interests to allow regeneration programme like this to go ahead, I do think taking to reflect on the whole project is sensible, if there are saving to be made or if a cheaper alternative can be found, then in these times of Tory inflicted austerity, its best to so.

Having said that the residents/tenants have been consulted and the proposal have been approved by them, so the new council really need to ensure the development happens.

To me its a no brainer, offloading run down council accommodation and replacing it with new builds brings a community back to life, regardless of own the homes, Housing association, Council (by the way, all councils will be bringing the rents in line with housing associations soon anyway) or private.



I think

"I do think taking to reflect on the whole project is sensible, if there are saving to be made or if a cheaper alternative can be found, then in these times of Tory inflicted austerity, its best to so. "

What is there to think about?! The SCC executives/senior management and everyone else concerned including the residents have said to go ahead!
>
The only possible reason for a delay is so that the new Labour council can say "we gave the final go ahead"!!
>
My money is on further delay..........

A bit like the last Tory council saying that they regenerated Thornhill, when in fact the £48,7 million was given to the community by the last Government, the Tory council role to act as the accountable body, creaming of millions in interest because the money was held in the account and applying for funding to run there better homes project to the tune of £7 million plus loads more, Neighbourhood wardens, tidy team and lots more.

Pot kettle black, I think George

The Labour council will waffle the same as you have. All due diligence has been done on this project and the deal was done. It is either being delayed for ideology purposes or egos - you tell me which one. Its the residents who are losing out..........

George4th wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:

George4th wrote:

Over the Edge wrote:

George4th wrote:

MGRA wrote:
Labour starting what they mean to continue... to restrain progress, uphold under-achievment, celebrate mediocraty and promote stagnation. The turkeys of southampton voted for christmas !!

Correct! It will be a repeat of when they last held sway at SCC.
>
Labour deliberate and deliberate and talk and talk and talk and talk and by the time it comes to making a watered down decision all those in the process have run for cover!
>
Once you spook developers/investors you put them on notice that the project will be delayed indefinitely. Are those same developers/investors going to hang around waiting for SCC or develop/invest elsewhere?
>
Labour ideology hinders the progress of the very people they are supposed to represent. Southampton got left behind by the last Labour councils - time stood still in the City of Southampton for 25 years.
>
Unfortunately, Southampton suffers from the days of Union aggro and a reputation for trouble - it's still in the genes of some people and it drags Southampton down. Look around, everywhere outside Southampton (Hampshire/Dorset/Su





ssex/Berkshire etc) has prospered and progressed far more than we have!

I wish you Peter Baillie would stop scaremongering, of course the developers will wait, for simple fact that funding (PUSH) for developments like this is for specific areas only, in this case Townhill, similar developments have been delayed, take Thornhill for instance there was delay there at the start of the project, some 6 months if I'm not mistaken, the developer and housing association stayed on board and the development went ahead.

Its in the councils best interests to allow regeneration programme like this to go ahead, I do think taking to reflect on the whole project is sensible, if there are saving to be made or if a cheaper alternative can be found, then in these times of Tory inflicted austerity, its best to so.

Having said that the residents/tenants have been consulted and the proposal have been approved by them, so the new council really need to ensure the development happens.

To me its a no brainer, offloading run down council accommodation and replacing it with new builds brings a community back to life, regardless of own the homes, Housing association, Council (by the way, all councils will be bringing the rents in line with housing associations soon anyway) or private.



I think

"I do think taking to reflect on the whole project is sensible, if there are saving to be made or if a cheaper alternative can be found, then in these times of Tory inflicted austerity, its best to so. "

What is there to think about?! The SCC executives/senior management and everyone else concerned including the residents have said to go ahead!
>
The only possible reason for a delay is so that the new Labour council can say "we gave the final go ahead"!!
>
My money is on further delay..........

A bit like the last Tory council saying that they regenerated Thornhill, when in fact the £48,7 million was given to the community by the last Government, the Tory council role to act as the accountable body, creaming of millions in interest because the money was held in the account and applying for funding to run there better homes project to the tune of £7 million plus loads more, Neighbourhood wardens, tidy team and lots more.

Pot kettle black, I think George

The Labour council will waffle the same as you have. All due diligence has been done on this project and the deal was done. It is either being delayed for ideology purposes or egos - you tell me which one. Its the residents who are losing out..........

Did you see the BBC local news tonight?
The Eco estate That the Tory council built in partnership with Radion?
Williams was there & no mention of the previous councils part in it.
When asked if the next phase would happen or if this was the way for the future Williams went on about scale of development & getting it cheaper?
I've just got my Solar panels (25year lease of roof) & I'm now enjoying free energy in l=the hours of light.
these houses will benefit from every energy saving device for council tenants?
Why not allow council Tenants to have them & why not build more ECO homes?
As for this development how many townhill residents have been writing in anti this development?
Before stopping it has anyone asked them?
people on here are going on about Romanse?
Saving the now Labour Council £500,000 a year & helping pay the two posts created on £28,000 a year?
This is about a ill thought out estate getting redeveloped & improved for council tenants because even if they live in a HA house they're still classified as council tenants,
Take a look at the Homebid mag & see how many are HA properties?

I just hope that the Council stops OUR land falling into the private property developers hands.

Rob,

So you are happy then with people living in substandard accomoation?

You are happy for much needed jobs not be created?

You are right ,make the council clean upther own mess.
I live in grimsby and 8 years ago our houses were sold to a private housing asscociation.
The rents habe doubled since ,despite all the HA promises about no rises ,yet they have still gone bankrupt and are passing the buck all over town .

juliebutt wrote:
You are right ,make the council clean upther own mess.
I live in grimsby and 8 years ago our houses were sold to a private housing asscociation.
The rents habe doubled since ,despite all the HA promises about no rises ,yet they have still gone bankrupt and are passing the buck all over town .

Julie the problem is much/all of the money received in council rent/Business rates were taken by central government.
this has then been relocated back here to the sum of 90% approx. but under the Last government this was being slashed each year to send money from the so called rich South to the so called Poor North so even if the councils here wanted to build more council homes they never had sufficient money to do it with so partnerships with HA's was the only way to go