£100m scheme for Townhill Park in Southampton put on hold

Daily Echo: Townhill Park residents take a look at the plans Townhill Park residents take a look at the plans

THE go-ahead for a £100m scheme to transform a Southampton estate has been put on hold, the Daily Echo can reveal.

In one of their first major decisions since coming to power the city council’s new Labour leaders have postponed any decision on the scheme for Townhill Park.

They say it is merely to have a closer look at the proposals, drawn up by the previous Tory administration which lost power at the local council elections earlier this month.

But Conservatives said they fear the delay means their ambitious plans to demolish five blocks of flats in Townhill Park to make way for up to 657 new homes and a shopping parade are now in jeopardy.

The proposals also include a “central park” to create a focus for community life, alongside a “village green,” which would provide a hub for community events and celebrations.

Under the scheme, around a third of the new homes would be sold off by the developers as payment for completing the work. The rest would be handed over to a housing association to manage, because they are able to bring in additional Government funding not offered to councils.

Former Tory housing boss councillor Peter Baillie said: “I have grave concerns that it's under threat and they will find an excuse not to go ahead with it. It will be a massive lost opportunity to improve the quality of life for residents and well as health, schools and the local economy.”

He added: “There’s a big lobby within Labour who don’t like the idea of selling off council land and that’s a big stumbling block.

“I do worry that it’s going to be ideological, that they want to keep control of land and houses.

“They want the council to be building everything. If they want to do that as an idea, they're going to price themselves out of doing it.

“We haven't got £100m -– we’ve got £10 or £20m.”

Cllr Baillie said despite accusations of “selling off the family silver”, the rebuilding project is the only way to achieve a “fundamental change” to an estate where 35 per cent of adults have no qualifications and there are serious health issues connected to economic problems.

Labour vow Despite the hold-up Labour have vowed to press ahead with the regeneration scheme. The council's new finance boss Councillor Simon Letts said a decision on the scheme would be made by the council on July 11 once the plans had been examined in detail.

He added: “It’s such a complex scheme it’s only right we take time to make sure we are happy with it. We don’t want to commit excess funding for this until we are absolutely certain.”

He said there would be a scheme in Townhill Park with broadly the same number of units, possibly with changes to the mix of houses.

He would not say at this stage whether the same amount of funds would be used until they had looked at the details.

“Broadly speaking it will be a similar scheme if not identical,” he added.

Cabinet member for housing councillor Warwick Payne added: “The decision regarding the Townhill Park regeneration framework will be taken in July 2012 rather than May 2012.

"Southampton City Council’s new administration are fully committed to estate regeneration and the Townhill Park scheme and look forward to bringing forward these exciting plans in July 2012.”

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:07am Wed 23 May 12

aldermoorboy says...

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

7:19am Wed 23 May 12

PhoenixLives says...

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.
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. PhoenixLives

7:25am Wed 23 May 12

Condor Man says...

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.
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. Condor Man

8:47am Wed 23 May 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

knock them down and return them to countryside.
knock them down and return them to countryside. arthur dalyrimple

8:48am Wed 23 May 12

bigfella777 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]PhoenixLives[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. bigfella777

8:53am Wed 23 May 12

Ted Rogers says...

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.
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. Ted Rogers

8:55am Wed 23 May 12

wizard says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Is this a joke post? wizard

9:05am Wed 23 May 12

Condor Man says...

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.
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

9:07am Wed 23 May 12

bigfella777 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]But SCC are still the 3rd biggest social landlord in the country. bigfella777

9:09am Wed 23 May 12

Ford Prefect says...

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?
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? Ford Prefect

9:11am Wed 23 May 12

MGRA says...

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 !!
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 !! MGRA

9:16am Wed 23 May 12

PaddyDucks says...

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

9:37am Wed 23 May 12

Linesman says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Linesman

9:45am Wed 23 May 12

Ford Prefect says...

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.
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

9:47am Wed 23 May 12

Condor Man says...

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.
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. Condor Man

9:48am Wed 23 May 12

Lone Ranger. says...

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
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 Lone Ranger.

9:54am Wed 23 May 12

G0Rf says...

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?
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? G0Rf

10:01am Wed 23 May 12

Ford Prefect says...

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?
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? Ford Prefect

10:47am Wed 23 May 12

Torchie1 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. Torchie1

10:59am Wed 23 May 12

The Salv says...

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

10:59am Wed 23 May 12

Smartiepants says...

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.
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. Smartiepants

11:18am Wed 23 May 12

bigfella777 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]G0Rf[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]Everyone knows working is a mugs game, 50 years graft and then you die, great life. bigfella777

11:32am Wed 23 May 12

George4th says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] 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 !![/p][/quote]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! George4th

11:33am Wed 23 May 12

Wizzel says...

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..
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.. Wizzel

11:45am Wed 23 May 12

Lone Ranger. says...

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.
.
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. . Lone Ranger.

12:04pm Wed 23 May 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

“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
“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 Paramjit Bahia

12:34pm Wed 23 May 12

Over the Edge says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Evidence please? Over the Edge

12:58pm Wed 23 May 12

MGRA says...

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 !?
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]do you live in the same century as the rest of us !? MGRA

1:04pm Wed 23 May 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

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
[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]do you live in the same century as the rest of us !?[/p][/quote]Wherever but certainly not in your bloody fools paradise Paramjit Bahia

1:13pm Wed 23 May 12

Over the Edge says...

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
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] 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 !![/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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

1:23pm Wed 23 May 12

George4th says...

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..........
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] 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 !![/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]"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.......... George4th

1:39pm Wed 23 May 12

Huffter says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]PaddyDucks[/bold] wrote: Nice one MGRA Obviously residents didnt like the Tory proposals and voted Labour for a cancellation. They got what they voted for. hahaha[/p][/quote]Actually 70% didn't bother to vote and couldn't care less what happens. Huffter

2:25pm Wed 23 May 12

aldermoorboy says...

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

4:53pm Wed 23 May 12

loosehead says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] 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. .[/p][/quote]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? loosehead

5:38pm Wed 23 May 12

Condor Man says...

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
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Evidence please?[/p][/quote]over half the houses in Southampton are privately owned, less than 25% are SCC. Source, SCC Condor Man

5:40pm Wed 23 May 12

Lone Ranger. says...

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 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 !!!! ??? Lone Ranger.

6:53pm Wed 23 May 12

OceansofRed says...

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

Surely this scheme is right up their street?
I thought Labour wanted increased infrastructure spending and more apprentices to boost youth employment? Surely this scheme is right up their street? OceansofRed

7:02pm Wed 23 May 12

bigborlotto says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]PhoenixLives[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]at last common sense exists. bigborlotto

7:22pm Wed 23 May 12

OceansofRed says...

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

7:23pm Wed 23 May 12

Over the Edge says...

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
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] 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 !![/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]"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..........[/p][/quote]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

8:40pm Wed 23 May 12

George4th says...

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..........
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] 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 !![/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]"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..........[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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

9:26pm Wed 23 May 12

loosehead says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] 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 !![/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]"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..........[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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..........[/p][/quote]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? loosehead

9:55pm Wed 23 May 12

Rob444 says...

I just hope that the Council stops OUR land falling into the private property developers hands.
I just hope that the Council stops OUR land falling into the private property developers hands. Rob444

10:00pm Wed 23 May 12

OceansofRed says...

Rob,

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

You are happy for much needed jobs not be created?
Rob, So you are happy then with people living in substandard accomoation? You are happy for much needed jobs not be created? OceansofRed

2:39am Thu 24 May 12

juliebutt says...

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 .
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

6:46am Thu 24 May 12

loosehead says...

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
[quote][p][bold]juliebutt[/bold] 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 .[/p][/quote]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 loosehead

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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