Estate's £100m revamp 'will go ahead' (From Daily Echo)

Rhombus says...
7:51am Sat 11 Aug 12

Way to be narrow minded Scooby. I guess we should just give the money to arseholes like you instead eh?

Report this post »

Paramjit Bahia says...
7:58am Sat 11 Aug 12

In May NuLabour misled voters by giving the impression that they will be different than Tories.

This is one more example of n
NuLabourites cuddling Conservative agenda and implementing their policies.

Current council owned housing stock in Townhill may not be exactly of posh pads of Multi millionaire's paradise of Sandbanks, but providing reasonable roofs for many families.

Under smoke screen of modernisation these will be demolished, control of public owned land handed over to privateers, seductively sounding affordable housing means loss of Council owned housing stock and in future resident's fate in the hands of democratically un-accountable housing associations.

Most of us may not be keen on Tories, at least they openly admitt to be a Nasty Party, so we know what to expect, but with these NuLabourites... When in opposition they show mirage of socialism but in power implement right of Thatcher policies.

That's why trade unions, real socialists and progressive environmentalists should join up to create a new party with old Labour values.

Report this post »

huckit P says...
8:20am Sat 11 Aug 12

It seems to be a lot of money and effort to be spent on residents who (in the majority) have proven to be less than worthy recipients. Why should people go to work and earn a living if the state give the lazy lowlifes everything and more?

Report this post »

Lewisscooby says...
8:24am Sat 11 Aug 12

Rhombus wrote:
Way to be narrow minded Scooby. I guess we should just give the money to arseholes like you instead eh?

Take it you live there then? Or don't work? Or not pay tax

Report this post »

loosehead says...
8:37am Sat 11 Aug 12

Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million?
Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?

Report this post »

Linesman says...
8:55am Sat 11 Aug 12

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
In May NuLabour misled voters by giving the impression that they will be different than Tories.

This is one more example of n
NuLabourites cuddling Conservative agenda and implementing their policies.

Current council owned housing stock in Townhill may not be exactly of posh pads of Multi millionaire's paradise of Sandbanks, but providing reasonable roofs for many families.

Under smoke screen of modernisation these will be demolished, control of public owned land handed over to privateers, seductively sounding affordable housing means loss of Council owned housing stock and in future resident's fate in the hands of democratically un-accountable housing associations.

Most of us may not be keen on Tories, at least they openly admitt to be a Nasty Party, so we know what to expect, but with these NuLabourites... When in opposition they show mirage of socialism but in power implement right of Thatcher policies.

That's why trade unions, real socialists and progressive environmentalists should join up to create a new party with old Labour values.

I guess that it had never crossed your mind that the Tories suggested this as sweetner to the electorate in the hope that it would bring them in enough votes to keep them afloat. Probably had no intention of following through on it.

The new council had to check the plans out before giving it the go-ahead.

If your political thinking is that people should it is all right for people to just have 'reasonable roofs for many families' then it is 'stick in the mud' thinking that considers the people's housing condition should just be adequate with no improvements made.

Your thinking is more aligned with Tory thinking than the Socialist dream that you often spout.

Report this post »

midanburyway says...
9:02am Sat 11 Aug 12

my property backs on to frogs copse and there is gonna be a fight if they think they are gonna build on there...its a conservation area and it will also affect the valuation of a lot of properties...lots of people not happy with that plan....the council better be involving midanbury residents in this decision

Report this post »

Inform Al says...
9:02am Sat 11 Aug 12

Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.

Report this post »

Ant Smoking MP says...
9:12am Sat 11 Aug 12

loosehead wrote:
Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million?
Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?

Look at the article.
.
"IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground.

The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration,"
.
You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.

Report this post »

midanburyway says...
9:19am Sat 11 Aug 12

council tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation.....with the money they get from the tax payer in their benefits.....from my view the majority of council tenants do not pay rent they get housing benefit....i lived in a council block for a while and i was the only person who worked every one else was on benefits.....i know many people who live in council propertys and not one of them pay any rent

Report this post »

Torchie1 says...
9:21am Sat 11 Aug 12

Inform Al wrote:
Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.

I think it's jolly decent of the Council tenants to be so generous but judging by the number of cars parked on every square inch of any Council Estate, they won't miss it.

Report this post »

Paramjit Bahia says...
9:25am Sat 11 Aug 12

Linesman wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
In May NuLabour misled voters by giving the impression that they will be different than Tories.

This is one more example of n
NuLabourites cuddling Conservative agenda and implementing their policies.

Current council owned housing stock in Townhill may not be exactly of posh pads of Multi millionaire's paradise of Sandbanks, but providing reasonable roofs for many families.

Under smoke screen of modernisation these will be demolished, control of public owned land handed over to privateers, seductively sounding affordable housing means loss of Council owned housing stock and in future resident's fate in the hands of democratically un-accountable housing associations.

Most of us may not be keen on Tories, at least they openly admitt to be a Nasty Party, so we know what to expect, but with these NuLabourites... When in opposition they show mirage of socialism but in power implement right of Thatcher policies.

That's why trade unions, real socialists and progressive environmentalists should join up to create a new party with old Labour values.
I guess that it had never crossed your mind that the Tories suggested this as sweetner to the electorate in the hope that it would bring them in enough votes to keep them afloat. Probably had no intention of following through on it.

The new council had to check the plans out before giving it the go-ahead.

If your political thinking is that people should it is all right for people to just have 'reasonable roofs for many families' then it is 'stick in the mud' thinking that considers the people's housing condition should just be adequate with no improvements made.

Your thinking is more aligned with Tory thinking than the Socialist dream that you often spout.

Not my fault if you may have just fell on the wrong side of bed, and could not have coffee because you forgot to do shopping yesterday....

You will have to do much better gymnastics that all the Olympic champions put together to find me aligned with Thatcher's heartless and ruthless brats on housing policy. Unless you have developed some weird imagination. In which case I am really sorry losing somebody on this site with reasonably progressive thinking.

My friend it's not me aligning with Nasty Party, but your unprincipled self serving opportunist parasites of British Trdae Union Movement led by their Dear Leader who are not building Council Houses but implementing seductively plausible plot of passing public owned assets to democratically unaccountable people.

By the way is it true that Dear Leader also owns some housing stock, and is profiteering out of basic need of people to have a roof over their heads? I am told that properties to be demolished in Townhill are much better than let by The Dear Leader.

Have a nice day, and explain to others the mystery of many millions mentioned in Tory loosehead's comment.

[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: In May NuLabour misled voters by giving the impression that they will be different than Tories. This is one more example of n NuLabourites cuddling Conservative agenda and implementing their policies. Current council owned housing stock in Townhill may not be exactly of posh pads of Multi millionaire's paradise of Sandbanks, but providing reasonable roofs for many families. Under smoke screen of modernisation these will be demolished, control of public owned land handed over to privateers, seductively sounding affordable housing means loss of Council owned housing stock and in future resident's fate in the hands of democratically un-accountable housing associations. Most of us may not be keen on Tories, at least they openly admitt to be a Nasty Party, so we know what to expect, but with these NuLabourites... When in opposition they show mirage of socialism but in power implement right of Thatcher policies. That's why trade unions, real socialists and progressive environmentalists should join up to create a new party with old Labour values.[/p][/quote]I guess that it had never crossed your mind that the Tories suggested this as sweetner to the electorate in the hope that it would bring them in enough votes to keep them afloat. Probably had no intention of following through on it. The new council had to check the plans out before giving it the go-ahead. If your political thinking is that people should it is all right for people to just have 'reasonable roofs for many families' then it is 'stick in the mud' thinking that considers the people's housing condition should just be adequate with no improvements made. Your thinking is more aligned with Tory thinking than the Socialist dream that you often spout.[/p][/quote]Not my fault if you may have just fell on the wrong side of bed, and could not have coffee because you forgot to do shopping yesterday.... You will have to do much better gymnastics that all the Olympic champions put together to find me aligned with Thatcher's heartless and ruthless brats on housing policy. Unless you have developed some weird imagination. In which case I am really sorry losing somebody on this site with reasonably progressive thinking. My friend it's not me aligning with Nasty Party, but your unprincipled self serving opportunist parasites of British Trdae Union Movement led by their Dear Leader who are not building Council Houses but implementing seductively plausible plot of passing public owned assets to democratically unaccountable people. By the way is it true that Dear Leader also owns some housing stock, and is profiteering out of basic need of people to have a roof over their heads? I am told that properties to be demolished in Townhill are much better than let by The Dear Leader. Have a nice day, and explain to others the mystery of many millions mentioned in Tory loosehead's comment. Paramjit Bahia

Report this post »

Vonnie says...
9:26am Sat 11 Aug 12

Inform Al wrote:
Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.

At last. Someone with a proper grasp of some of the facts surrounding Council owned properties and Council rents. I just wish that some of the ignorant morons who post on this site would educate themselves before they start typing.

As for the Nimbys (midanburyway ) who don't want to live anywhere near Council owned properties, they make me sick, and cost Councils a fortune with their selfish objections.

Report this post »

hulla baloo says...
9:34am Sat 11 Aug 12

midanburyway wrote:
my property backs on to frogs copse and there is gonna be a fight if they think they are gonna build on there...its a conservation area and it will also affect the valuation of a lot of properties...lots of people not happy with that plan....the council better be involving midanbury residents in this decision

NIMBY.

Report this post »

midanburyway says...
9:39am Sat 11 Aug 12

i dont mind living near council properties, but ive worked long and hard years to pay my way....something some other people should do and not rely on tax payers to fund their lifestyle choices....i know some people work and cannot afford mortgages ,,,these are the people who should be given affordable council properties ....not people who have have never worked and have no intention of ever working but have big families that they expect other people to pay for.....when council housing came about it was designed for WORKING class familys....when u work for something u have pride in something....when its given to u on a plate its expected , not earned....

Report this post »

midanburyway says...
9:44am Sat 11 Aug 12

im not saying the whole area doesnt need rejuvinating.....but to build on a woodland area which has wild animals including deer and foxes is just wrong...its a conservation area, surely there are laws regarding this

Report this post »

loosehead says...
9:44am Sat 11 Aug 12

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million?
Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?
Look at the article.
.
"IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground.

The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration,"
.
You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.

You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it!
“We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park.
So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?

Report this post »

Vonnie says...
9:46am Sat 11 Aug 12

So, what has that got to do with :- quote "and it will also affect the valuation of a lot of properties...lots of people not happy with that plan....the council better be involving midanbury residents in this decision” unquote

Report this post »

loosehead says...
9:52am Sat 11 Aug 12

Inform Al wrote:
Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.

Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing?
do you have to pay for modernising the property?
If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to
live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties?
you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing

Report this post »

midanburyway says...
9:57am Sat 11 Aug 12

because not one resident in midanbury has been informed of these plans...not invited to look at plans or been invited to meetings that have been held...when we purchased our property we were told that frogs copse would never be built on and that was one of the reasons we chose to live here....it will affect our property if we ever try to sell....will the council compensate us...i think not....no matter what any body calling me a nimby thinks, if u were in the same position you would be thinking the same

Report this post »

midanburyway says...
10:02am Sat 11 Aug 12

as ive seen there are 3 proposals and when i spoke to someone in the council she said they would keep me informed....looking forward to receiving my letter on monday!

Report this post »

Ant Smoking MP says...
10:15am Sat 11 Aug 12

loosehead wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million?
Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?
Look at the article.
.
"IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground.

The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration,"
.
You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.
You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it!
“We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park.
So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?

If an extra £50 million is needed and prior to 3rd May election it wasnt, the Tories must have not worked out the costings properly and used the development spin only for election purposes.

Report this post »

hays1179 says...
10:32am Sat 11 Aug 12

i agree with scooby it will only get trashed again i no several people who live in those flats and they are a state but also the inside of their property is a state i think that the council and housing associations should do a yearly check on properties to stop people treating them like a pig sty.
its also not nice to live by people that dont respect there home.

Report this post »

alan.of.eastleigh says...
11:04am Sat 11 Aug 12

midanburyway wrote:
as ive seen there are 3 proposals and when i spoke to someone in the council she said they would keep me informed....looking forward to receiving my letter on monday!

Amazing. In just a few posts you have pretty well summed up what is wrong with this country. Self interest, vanity and a total failure to understand the social dynamics around deprived areas and the action required to resolve them. And then you expect the council to spoon feed you information rather than get off your backside. Are you seriously suggesting fox and deer - who are fine in their own environment but nothing more than pests in an urban environment - are more important than people who need homes? Have a word with yourself please.

Report this post »

George4th says...
11:29am Sat 11 Aug 12

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million?
Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?
Look at the article.
.
"IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground.

The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration,"
.
You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.
You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it!
“We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park.
So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?
If an extra £50 million is needed and prior to 3rd May election it wasnt, the Tories must have not worked out the costings properly and used the development spin only for election purposes.

Ant, try answering Loosehead factually rather than waffling and making up Fairy Stories!

Given Councillor Peter Baillie's quote "We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans" are we not entitled to ask why they are borrowing the money, and from whom?

Report this post »

The Watcher says...
11:47am Sat 11 Aug 12

If the comments on this story are in any way a fair representation of the residents of our fine City, then I have to despAir at what the future holds for us all.
.
The ignorance, arrogance and lack of awareness is shocking.
.
One can only hope that it is a rabid minority who attempt to share their poorly formed views on here (the present author and a small number of contributors excepted of course).

Report this post »

loosehead says...
1:09pm Sat 11 Aug 12

The copse they are building on is it used for recreational purposes? is it a place foe wild life?
if either of the above surely this is a valuable asset to the residents & shouldn't be built on?
Here's passing this point over to any Townhill residents to comment on.
Do you Want To keep the Copse?

Report this post »

Ant Smoking MP says...
1:20pm Sat 11 Aug 12

George4th wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million?
Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?
Look at the article.
.
"IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground.

The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration,"
.
You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.
You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it!
“We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park.
So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?
If an extra £50 million is needed and prior to 3rd May election it wasnt, the Tories must have not worked out the costings properly and used the development spin only for election purposes.
Ant, try answering Loosehead factually rather than waffling and making up Fairy Stories!

Given Councillor Peter Baillie's quote "We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans" are we not entitled to ask why they are borrowing the money, and from whom?

Yes you certainly are but what I am trying to work out is if the original plan is now £50 million short we need to find out how the previous administration got it so wrong. By inference Loserhead seems to be suggesting it all has gone wrong since Labour got into power.

[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million? Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?[/p][/quote]Look at the article. . "IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground. The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration," . You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.[/p][/quote]You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it! “We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park. So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?[/p][/quote]If an extra £50 million is needed and prior to 3rd May election it wasnt, the Tories must have not worked out the costings properly and used the development spin only for election purposes.[/p][/quote]Ant, try answering Loosehead factually rather than waffling and making up Fairy Stories! Given Councillor Peter Baillie's quote "We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans" are we not entitled to ask why they are borrowing the money, and from whom?[/p][/quote]Yes you certainly are but what I am trying to work out is if the original plan is now £50 million short we need to find out how the previous administration got it so wrong. By inference Loserhead seems to be suggesting it all has gone wrong since Labour got into power. Ant Smoking MP

Report this post »

Inform Al says...
1:49pm Sat 11 Aug 12

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:
Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.
Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing?
do you have to pay for modernising the property?
If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to
live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties?
you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing

Don't be silly, repairs etc are paid for from the rental income, just like any other tenant of private landlords or housing association. As far as council tenants caring for their properties you only have to look at the Flower Roads Estate which is now less than 40% council and apart from the few privately owned homes lived in by their owners the council homes stand out as mainly the looked after tidy properties.

[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.[/p][/quote]Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing? do you have to pay for modernising the property? If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties? you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, repairs etc are paid for from the rental income, just like any other tenant of private landlords or housing association. As far as council tenants caring for their properties you only have to look at the Flower Roads Estate which is now less than 40% council and apart from the few privately owned homes lived in by their owners the council homes stand out as mainly the looked after tidy properties. Inform Al

Report this post »

likewatchingbrazil says...
2:40pm Sat 11 Aug 12

i dont have a problem with this as long as they send all the Polish home and then get our 2.5mil unemployed in those jobs left by the Polish to pay the rent.
easy really.

Report this post »

loosehead says...
3:00pm Sat 11 Aug 12

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:
Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.
Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing?
do you have to pay for modernising the property?
If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to
live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties?
you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing
Don't be silly, repairs etc are paid for from the rental income, just like any other tenant of private landlords or housing association. As far as council tenants caring for their properties you only have to look at the Flower Roads Estate which is now less than 40% council and apart from the few privately owned homes lived in by their owners the council homes stand out as mainly the looked after tidy properties.

Did a post round in the Flower gardens & I think you're taking the mickey aren't you?
yes you can tell the rented from the private homes but not in the way you suggested

[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.[/p][/quote]Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing? do you have to pay for modernising the property? If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties? you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, repairs etc are paid for from the rental income, just like any other tenant of private landlords or housing association. As far as council tenants caring for their properties you only have to look at the Flower Roads Estate which is now less than 40% council and apart from the few privately owned homes lived in by their owners the council homes stand out as mainly the looked after tidy properties.[/p][/quote]Did a post round in the Flower gardens & I think you're taking the mickey aren't you? yes you can tell the rented from the private homes but not in the way you suggested loosehead

Report this post »

loosehead says...
3:07pm Sat 11 Aug 12

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

George4th wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million?
Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?
Look at the article.
.
"IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground.

The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration,"
.
You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.
You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it!
“We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park.
So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?
If an extra £50 million is needed and prior to 3rd May election it wasnt, the Tories must have not worked out the costings properly and used the development spin only for election purposes.
Ant, try answering Loosehead factually rather than waffling and making up Fairy Stories!

Given Councillor Peter Baillie's quote "We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans" are we not entitled to ask why they are borrowing the money, and from whom?
Yes you certainly are but what I am trying to work out is if the original plan is now £50 million short we need to find out how the previous administration got it so wrong. By inference Loserhead seems to be suggesting it all has gone wrong since Labour got into power.

Hold on it's Loosehead.
Right you/Labour postponed this development,Labour are shutting down Oaklands Pool, Labour appointed two £22,000 a year cabinet posts that were not there or not needed before so who exactly is it spending an extra £50million on this project whilst at the same time promising to restore pay as long as there's job losses?
Get it right I'm only accusing Labour on what they've done since they came to power.
If they were the ones financing the Tudor re-enctments & had rolled it out across all of this city I for one would be praising them.
I criticise where it's deserved & I praise where it's deserved I disagree with the Tory Party over Bio Mass so come on Ant is there something you're not happy with being done by Labour?

[quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million? Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?[/p][/quote]Look at the article. . "IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground. The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration," . You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.[/p][/quote]You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it! “We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park. So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?[/p][/quote]If an extra £50 million is needed and prior to 3rd May election it wasnt, the Tories must have not worked out the costings properly and used the development spin only for election purposes.[/p][/quote]Ant, try answering Loosehead factually rather than waffling and making up Fairy Stories! Given Councillor Peter Baillie's quote "We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans" are we not entitled to ask why they are borrowing the money, and from whom?[/p][/quote]Yes you certainly are but what I am trying to work out is if the original plan is now £50 million short we need to find out how the previous administration got it so wrong. By inference Loserhead seems to be suggesting it all has gone wrong since Labour got into power.[/p][/quote]Hold on it's Loosehead. Right you/Labour postponed this development,Labour are shutting down Oaklands Pool, Labour appointed two £22,000 a year cabinet posts that were not there or not needed before so who exactly is it spending an extra £50million on this project whilst at the same time promising to restore pay as long as there's job losses? Get it right I'm only accusing Labour on what they've done since they came to power. If they were the ones financing the Tudor re-enctments & had rolled it out across all of this city I for one would be praising them. I criticise where it's deserved & I praise where it's deserved I disagree with the Tory Party over Bio Mass so come on Ant is there something you're not happy with being done by Labour? loosehead

Report this post »

paul samosa says...
4:46pm Sat 11 Aug 12

i have live at townhillpark for 2 years now and have had no problems,here at all.the people on townhillpark are a good lot,looking out for each other,if you want trouble you will find it anywhere you live .if like me and lots of other people on townhillpark you want to live a normal life,i pay tax on my wages as do many others who live on townhillpark,live here for a while,then have a go at us.

Report this post »

Lone Ranger. says...
6:35pm Sat 11 Aug 12

loosehead wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

George4th wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million?
Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?
Look at the article.
.
"IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground.

The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration,"
.
You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.
You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it!
“We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park.
So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?
If an extra £50 million is needed and prior to 3rd May election it wasnt, the Tories must have not worked out the costings properly and used the development spin only for election purposes.
Ant, try answering Loosehead factually rather than waffling and making up Fairy Stories!

Given Councillor Peter Baillie's quote "We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans" are we not entitled to ask why they are borrowing the money, and from whom?
Yes you certainly are but what I am trying to work out is if the original plan is now £50 million short we need to find out how the previous administration got it so wrong. By inference Loserhead seems to be suggesting it all has gone wrong since Labour got into power.
Hold on it's Loosehead.
Right you/Labour postponed this development,Labour are shutting down Oaklands Pool, Labour appointed two £22,000 a year cabinet posts that were not there or not needed before so who exactly is it spending an extra £50million on this project whilst at the same time promising to restore pay as long as there's job losses?
Get it right I'm only accusing Labour on what they've done since they came to power.
If they were the ones financing the Tudor re-enctments & had rolled it out across all of this city I for one would be praising them.
I criticise where it's deserved & I praise where it's deserved I disagree with the Tory Party over Bio Mass so come on Ant is there something you're not happy with being done by Labour?

All these posts and waffle loosehead and you havent mentioned the Bin Men once..... Why not? so very disappoinied in you

[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million? Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?[/p][/quote]Look at the article. . "IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground. The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration," . You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.[/p][/quote]You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it! “We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park. So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?[/p][/quote]If an extra £50 million is needed and prior to 3rd May election it wasnt, the Tories must have not worked out the costings properly and used the development spin only for election purposes.[/p][/quote]Ant, try answering Loosehead factually rather than waffling and making up Fairy Stories! Given Councillor Peter Baillie's quote "We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans" are we not entitled to ask why they are borrowing the money, and from whom?[/p][/quote]Yes you certainly are but what I am trying to work out is if the original plan is now £50 million short we need to find out how the previous administration got it so wrong. By inference Loserhead seems to be suggesting it all has gone wrong since Labour got into power.[/p][/quote]Hold on it's Loosehead. Right you/Labour postponed this development,Labour are shutting down Oaklands Pool, Labour appointed two £22,000 a year cabinet posts that were not there or not needed before so who exactly is it spending an extra £50million on this project whilst at the same time promising to restore pay as long as there's job losses? Get it right I'm only accusing Labour on what they've done since they came to power. If they were the ones financing the Tudor re-enctments & had rolled it out across all of this city I for one would be praising them. I criticise where it's deserved & I praise where it's deserved I disagree with the Tory Party over Bio Mass so come on Ant is there something you're not happy with being done by Labour?[/p][/quote]All these posts and waffle loosehead and you havent mentioned the Bin Men once..... Why not? so very disappoinied in you Lone Ranger.

Report this post »

Inform Al says...
6:58pm Sat 11 Aug 12

midanburyway wrote:
council tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation.....with the money they get from the tax payer in their benefits.....from my view the majority of council tenants do not pay rent they get housing benefit....i lived in a council block for a while and i was the only person who worked every one else was on benefits.....i know many people who live in council propertys and not one of them pay any rent

Of social tenants, council tenants are more likely to be in work due to the lower rents due to the council's expert management. The tenants of private landlords are the ones least likely to be in employment as the rents charged do not encourage them to.

Report this post »

Inform Al says...
7:05pm Sat 11 Aug 12

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:
Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.
Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing?
do you have to pay for modernising the property?
If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to
live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties?
you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing
Don't be silly, repairs etc are paid for from the rental income, just like any other tenant of private landlords or housing association. As far as council tenants caring for their properties you only have to look at the Flower Roads Estate which is now less than 40% council and apart from the few privately owned homes lived in by their owners the council homes stand out as mainly the looked after tidy properties.
Did a post round in the Flower gardens & I think you're taking the mickey aren't you?
yes you can tell the rented from the private homes but not in the way you suggested

And of course the postie knows which houses are council and which are private rented, not. As a former chair of the Tenants and residents association I do. The fact is that by and large it is the council and owner occupied homes that are well tended and the private rented, especially the student ones, that are not. Sorry if this does not fit in with your bigoted ideals.

[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.[/p][/quote]Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing? do you have to pay for modernising the property? If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties? you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, repairs etc are paid for from the rental income, just like any other tenant of private landlords or housing association. As far as council tenants caring for their properties you only have to look at the Flower Roads Estate which is now less than 40% council and apart from the few privately owned homes lived in by their owners the council homes stand out as mainly the looked after tidy properties.[/p][/quote]Did a post round in the Flower gardens & I think you're taking the mickey aren't you? yes you can tell the rented from the private homes but not in the way you suggested[/p][/quote]And of course the postie knows which houses are council and which are private rented, not. As a former chair of the Tenants and residents association I do. The fact is that by and large it is the council and owner occupied homes that are well tended and the private rented, especially the student ones, that are not. Sorry if this does not fit in with your bigoted ideals. Inform Al

Report this post »

sarfhamton says...
7:22pm Sat 11 Aug 12

likewatchingbrazil wrote:
i dont have a problem with this as long as they send all the Polish home and then get our 2.5mil unemployed in those jobs left by the Polish to pay the rent.
easy really.

Think is the Polish want to work,
many English don't or are unemployable.

Report this post »

Over the Edge says...
8:31pm Sat 11 Aug 12

Inform Al wrote:

midanburyway wrote:
council tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation.....with the money they get from the tax payer in their benefits.....from my view the majority of council tenants do not pay rent they get housing benefit....i lived in a council block for a while and i was the only person who worked every one else was on benefits.....i know many people who live in council propertys and not one of them pay any rent
Of social tenants, council tenants are more likely to be in work due to the lower rents due to the council's expert management. The tenants of private landlords are the ones least likely to be in employment as the rents charged do not encourage them to.

You don't half talk some sh1t Mr Kebbell

Report this post »

Rob444 says...
9:30pm Sat 11 Aug 12

Fantastic news!

I thought that is was part of the government's hidden agenda to make council housing a thing of the past.

Well done So'ton council.

Report this post »

Good Looking Man About Town says...
9:34pm Sat 11 Aug 12

paul samosa wrote:
i have live at townhillpark for 2 years now and have had no problems,here at all.the people on townhillpark are a good lot,looking out for each other,if you want trouble you will find it anywhere you live .if like me and lots of other people on townhillpark you want to live a normal life,i pay tax on my wages as do many others who live on townhillpark,live here for a while,then have a go at us.

Thank you for your offer to live with you lot in Townhill Park but on this occasion I will give it a miss.

Report this post »

loosehead says...
9:52pm Sat 11 Aug 12

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:
Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.
Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing?
do you have to pay for modernising the property?
If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to
live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties?
you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing
Don't be silly, repairs etc are paid for from the rental income, just like any other tenant of private landlords or housing association. As far as council tenants caring for their properties you only have to look at the Flower Roads Estate which is now less than 40% council and apart from the few privately owned homes lived in by their owners the council homes stand out as mainly the looked after tidy properties.
Did a post round in the Flower gardens & I think you're taking the mickey aren't you?
yes you can tell the rented from the private homes but not in the way you suggested
And of course the postie knows which houses are council and which are private rented, not. As a former chair of the Tenants and residents association I do. The fact is that by and large it is the council and owner occupied homes that are well tended and the private rented, especially the student ones, that are not. Sorry if this does not fit in with your bigoted ideals.

So exactly why did you move?
So the houses with dog muck every where was private rented or with a caravan in it with bull staffs running around were private rentals?
or the two houses with 1/with Polish Ladies ( good looking). 2/ Polish men in it with both houses having damage to their front doors with Polish Go Home painted on them otherwise both properties looked good were private rentals?
Please Alan I was born & bred in a council home & I live in a road of mixed council & private houses so I'm no way bigoted but the houses Labour wants is Social isn't it?
try looking at social housing areas & you will see that the good tenants are being stuck with tenants who really don't deserve to be given a home.
I'm not going to point out Council areas as I don't think it's the fault of all council or Social housing tenants but some you really have to ask if an American styled Trailer Park would be too good for them

[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.[/p][/quote]Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing? do you have to pay for modernising the property? If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties? you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, repairs etc are paid for from the rental income, just like any other tenant of private landlords or housing association. As far as council tenants caring for their properties you only have to look at the Flower Roads Estate which is now less than 40% council and apart from the few privately owned homes lived in by their owners the council homes stand out as mainly the looked after tidy properties.[/p][/quote]Did a post round in the Flower gardens & I think you're taking the mickey aren't you? yes you can tell the rented from the private homes but not in the way you suggested[/p][/quote]And of course the postie knows which houses are council and which are private rented, not. As a former chair of the Tenants and residents association I do. The fact is that by and large it is the council and owner occupied homes that are well tended and the private rented, especially the student ones, that are not. Sorry if this does not fit in with your bigoted ideals.[/p][/quote]So exactly why did you move? So the houses with dog muck every where was private rented or with a caravan in it with bull staffs running around were private rentals? or the two houses with 1/with Polish Ladies ( good looking). 2/ Polish men in it with both houses having damage to their front doors with Polish Go Home painted on them otherwise both properties looked good were private rentals? Please Alan I was born & bred in a council home & I live in a road of mixed council & private houses so I'm no way bigoted but the houses Labour wants is Social isn't it? try looking at social housing areas & you will see that the good tenants are being stuck with tenants who really don't deserve to be given a home. I'm not going to point out Council areas as I don't think it's the fault of all council or Social housing tenants but some you really have to ask if an American styled Trailer Park would be too good for them loosehead

Report this post »

midanburyway says...
10:13pm Sat 11 Aug 12

dont know why someone in eastleigh is commenting.....does he live here ...no...so when some one wants to build on the back of your property , presuming u are a homeowner and not a council tenant, maybe u will understand

Report this post »

Poppy22 says...
1:58am Sun 12 Aug 12

The buildings certainly need renovating or, ideally, replacing with attractive accommodation for tenants. Doesn't seem right building on a copse, though, unless it's a copse only in name and not by appearance? Seems like an excuse to build more homes that will attract more people into the area, rather than improving the standard of affordable housing for people already in that area, which is what should be happening.

Report this post »

100%HANTSBOY says...
5:45am Sun 12 Aug 12

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
In May NuLabour misled voters by giving the impression that they will be different than Tories.

This is one more example of n
NuLabourites cuddling Conservative agenda and implementing their policies.

Current council owned housing stock in Townhill may not be exactly of posh pads of Multi millionaire's paradise of Sandbanks, but providing reasonable roofs for many families.

Under smoke screen of modernisation these will be demolished, control of public owned land handed over to privateers, seductively sounding affordable housing means loss of Council owned housing stock and in future resident's fate in the hands of democratically un-accountable housing associations.

Most of us may not be keen on Tories, at least they openly admitt to be a Nasty Party, so we know what to expect, but with these NuLabourites... When in opposition they show mirage of socialism but in power implement right of Thatcher policies.

That's why trade unions, real socialists and progressive environmentalists should join up to create a new party with old Labour values.

Better than living in a sh1tpit though!
Good on them,this project is well overdue

Report this post »

Fatty x Ford Worker says...
2:12pm Sun 12 Aug 12

Council Tenants are fussy now who wants to live up that Area!

Report this post »

lordshill loyal says...
4:06pm Sun 12 Aug 12

why does this and previous councils spend more money on the east of the city.£100 million to invest in townhill park yet cant find 10k to reopen a swimming pool in lordshill.this is just a pr stunt there getting it in the neck for the disgraceful way they are treating the people of the coxford ward so are trying to get some favourable press.once again the people of the west of the city are being mugged off. CLR WILLIAMS,PAYNE AND CO YOU ARE A DISGRACE AND SHOULD HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL.

Report this post »

Lone Ranger. says...
4:53pm Sun 12 Aug 12

lordshill loyal wrote:
why does this and previous councils spend more money on the east of the city.£100 million to invest in townhill park yet cant find 10k to reopen a swimming pool in lordshill.this is just a pr stunt there getting it in the neck for the disgraceful way they are treating the people of the coxford ward so are trying to get some favourable press.once again the people of the west of the city are being mugged off. CLR WILLIAMS,PAYNE AND CO YOU ARE A DISGRACE AND SHOULD HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL.

You save it ....... What have you done apart from bleet on here about it .....
..... My guess would be ......

Report this post »

loosehead says...
5:24pm Sun 12 Aug 12

Lone Ranger. wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

George4th wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Ant Smoking MP wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million?
Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?
Look at the article.
.
"IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground.

The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration,"
.
You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.
You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it!
“We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park.
So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?
If an extra £50 million is needed and prior to 3rd May election it wasnt, the Tories must have not worked out the costings properly and used the development spin only for election purposes.
Ant, try answering Loosehead factually rather than waffling and making up Fairy Stories!

Given Councillor Peter Baillie's quote "We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans" are we not entitled to ask why they are borrowing the money, and from whom?
Yes you certainly are but what I am trying to work out is if the original plan is now £50 million short we need to find out how the previous administration got it so wrong. By inference Loserhead seems to be suggesting it all has gone wrong since Labour got into power.
Hold on it's Loosehead.
Right you/Labour postponed this development,Labour are shutting down Oaklands Pool, Labour appointed two £22,000 a year cabinet posts that were not there or not needed before so who exactly is it spending an extra £50million on this project whilst at the same time promising to restore pay as long as there's job losses?
Get it right I'm only accusing Labour on what they've done since they came to power.
If they were the ones financing the Tudor re-enctments & had rolled it out across all of this city I for one would be praising them.
I criticise where it's deserved & I praise where it's deserved I disagree with the Tory Party over Bio Mass so come on Ant is there something you're not happy with being done by Labour?
All these posts and waffle loosehead and you havent mentioned the Bin Men once..... Why not? so very disappoinied in you

Do you really want me to drag in them?
£50million extra being spent by the council could have been spent elsewhere.
This means they wouldn't have to shut the Pool to save money.
Have you noticed I've tried not to mention you know who?

[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ant Smoking MP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Why was it no council money was being used in the Tory plans yet under Labour they've re jigged the plans & cost us £50million? Exactly where the hell's this money coming from?[/p][/quote]Look at the article. . "IT is the £100m regeneration project that residents of a Southampton estate feared would never get off the ground. The massive redevelopment of Townhill Park , which was agreed by the city’s previous Tory administration," . You should be asking where the Tories got the money from shouldnt you? It was already agreed.[/p][/quote]You said look at the Article well I did & this was in it! “We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans, but the scheme is very good for Townhill Park. So i'll ask you exactly where are they getting this extra £50million from & why do they need to alter the plans by that much?[/p][/quote]If an extra £50 million is needed and prior to 3rd May election it wasnt, the Tories must have not worked out the costings properly and used the development spin only for election purposes.[/p][/quote]Ant, try answering Loosehead factually rather than waffling and making up Fairy Stories! Given Councillor Peter Baillie's quote "We are a touch concerned that they are going to be borrowing another £50m extra to pay for it, which wasn’t in our plans" are we not entitled to ask why they are borrowing the money, and from whom?[/p][/quote]Yes you certainly are but what I am trying to work out is if the original plan is now £50 million short we need to find out how the previous administration got it so wrong. By inference Loserhead seems to be suggesting it all has gone wrong since Labour got into power.[/p][/quote]Hold on it's Loosehead. Right you/Labour postponed this development,Labour are shutting down Oaklands Pool, Labour appointed two £22,000 a year cabinet posts that were not there or not needed before so who exactly is it spending an extra £50million on this project whilst at the same time promising to restore pay as long as there's job losses? Get it right I'm only accusing Labour on what they've done since they came to power. If they were the ones financing the Tudor re-enctments & had rolled it out across all of this city I for one would be praising them. I criticise where it's deserved & I praise where it's deserved I disagree with the Tory Party over Bio Mass so come on Ant is there something you're not happy with being done by Labour?[/p][/quote]All these posts and waffle loosehead and you havent mentioned the Bin Men once..... Why not? so very disappoinied in you[/p][/quote]Do you really want me to drag in them? £50million extra being spent by the council could have been spent elsewhere. This means they wouldn't have to shut the Pool to save money. Have you noticed I've tried not to mention you know who? loosehead

Report this post »

Inform Al says...
6:01pm Sun 12 Aug 12

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:
Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.
Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing?
do you have to pay for modernising the property?
If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to
live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties?
you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing
Don't be silly, repairs etc are paid for from the rental income, just like any other tenant of private landlords or housing association. As far as council tenants caring for their properties you only have to look at the Flower Roads Estate which is now less than 40% council and apart from the few privately owned homes lived in by their owners the council homes stand out as mainly the looked after tidy properties.
Did a post round in the Flower gardens & I think you're taking the mickey aren't you?
yes you can tell the rented from the private homes but not in the way you suggested
And of course the postie knows which houses are council and which are private rented, not. As a former chair of the Tenants and residents association I do. The fact is that by and large it is the council and owner occupied homes that are well tended and the private rented, especially the student ones, that are not. Sorry if this does not fit in with your bigoted ideals.
So exactly why did you move?
So the houses with dog muck every where was private rented or with a caravan in it with bull staffs running around were private rentals?
or the two houses with 1/with Polish Ladies ( good looking). 2/ Polish men in it with both houses having damage to their front doors with Polish Go Home painted on them otherwise both properties looked good were private rentals?
Please Alan I was born & bred in a council home & I live in a road of mixed council & private houses so I'm no way bigoted but the houses Labour wants is Social isn't it?
try looking at social housing areas & you will see that the good tenants are being stuck with tenants who really don't deserve to be given a home.
I'm not going to point out Council areas as I don't think it's the fault of all council or Social housing tenants but some you really have to ask if an American styled Trailer Park would be too good for them

At least two of the properties you describe match houses owned and rented out by Arjaap Singh, the others probably are private rented as are the majority on the Flower Roads.

[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: Yet again comments from cretins who are ignorant of the facts. For those who like to be educated the facts are as follows. Thanks to Maggies government the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account ( rent income ) are ringfenced so all monies borrowed by the HRA are repaid by the tenants rents. Unfortunately governments since Maggie have manipulated it so they can TAX council rents. This means that for years now Council Tenants have been subsidising the rest of the nation, Southampton has now bought its way out of the iniquitous taxation at a cost of around £75million once again paid for from the HRA.. so the fact is that far from costing the taxpayer council housing has for years been subsidising them. I hope that the extra cost to the HRA is to enable the council to keep more of the new housing in house as the previous plan was to sell of a lot to housing associations etc.[/p][/quote]Al do you have to pay for repairs to your property? do you have to pay for double glazing? do you have to pay for modernising the property? If council tenants are being shafted why is it a family of all adults who all have new cars & who all go on holiday at least twice a year prefer to live in council accommodation rather than buy their own properties? you may be a very caring tenant but I could take you around Barons Mead & show you the estate & I bet you could tell me straight away which are private & which are social housing[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, repairs etc are paid for from the rental income, just like any other tenant of private landlords or housing association. As far as council tenants caring for their properties you only have to look at the Flower Roads Estate which is now less than 40% council and apart from the few privately owned homes lived in by their owners the council homes stand out as mainly the looked after tidy properties.[/p][/quote]Did a post round in the Flower gardens & I think you're taking the mickey aren't you? yes you can tell the rented from the private homes but not in the way you suggested[/p][/quote]And of course the postie knows which houses are council and which are private rented, not. As a former chair of the Tenants and residents association I do. The fact is that by and large it is the council and owner occupied homes that are well tended and the private rented, especially the student ones, that are not. Sorry if this does not fit in with your bigoted ideals.[/p][/quote]So exactly why did you move? So the houses with dog muck every where was private rented or with a caravan in it with bull staffs running around were private rentals? or the two houses with 1/with Polish Ladies ( good looking). 2/ Polish men in it with both houses having damage to their front doors with Polish Go Home painted on them otherwise both properties looked good were private rentals? Please Alan I was born & bred in a council home & I live in a road of mixed council & private houses so I'm no way bigoted but the houses Labour wants is Social isn't it? try looking at social housing areas & you will see that the good tenants are being stuck with tenants who really don't deserve to be given a home. I'm not going to point out Council areas as I don't think it's the fault of all council or Social housing tenants but some you really have to ask if an American styled Trailer Park would be too good for them[/p][/quote]At least two of the properties you describe match houses owned and rented out by Arjaap Singh, the others probably are private rented as are the majority on the Flower Roads. Inform Al

Report this post »

nicko says...
6:08pm Sun 12 Aug 12

I WAS WORKING ON THE SITE THEY HAVE JUST FINISHED NEXT TO THESE FLATS ,,,,,I WONT WORK THERE AGAIN,,,,,,,,,,ALL THE LOCALS DID WAS SMASH WINDOWS BREAK THE FENCES AND THROW STONES AT THE WORKERS BEST THING TO DO WITH THE MONEY IS PUT A FENCE ROUND IT AND LOCK THE GATES

Report this post »

bigfella777 says...
10:19am Mon 13 Aug 12

New houses to be available for existing social/council tenants.Now all they need is more children to qualify.
Cue mass coitus in the Townhill area.

Report this post »

Shoong says...
11:20am Mon 13 Aug 12

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
In May NuLabour misled voters by giving the impression that they will be different than Tories.

This is one more example of n
NuLabourites cuddling Conservative agenda and implementing their policies.

Current council owned housing stock in Townhill may not be exactly of posh pads of Multi millionaire's paradise of Sandbanks, but providing reasonable roofs for many families.

Under smoke screen of modernisation these will be demolished, control of public owned land handed over to privateers, seductively sounding affordable housing means loss of Council owned housing stock and in future resident's fate in the hands of democratically un-accountable housing associations.

Most of us may not be keen on Tories, at least they openly admitt to be a Nasty Party, so we know what to expect, but with these NuLabourites... When in opposition they show mirage of socialism but in power implement right of Thatcher policies.

That's why trade unions, real socialists and progressive environmentalists should join up to create a new party with old Labour values.

Dream on, all they know how to do is squabble amongst themselves.

Report this post »

lordshill loyal says...
8:10pm Mon 13 Aug 12

get a life lone ranger.saving the swimming pool is the only thing i have ever BLEATED on about.you are on here 24/7 BLEATING on about everything that moves.

Report this post »

babz2009 says...
2:12pm Sun 19 Aug 12

Totally agreeing with PAUL SAMOSA there is nothing wrong with townhill i mean ive only lived here just over a year and have been bought up in several places millbrook shirley weston and mansbrigde and townhill is nothing compared to them try living here before start moaning about it. i dont want to be moved out of townhill when my flat gets done but if i have to then so be it. WE DO DESERVE IT.

Report this post »

@dailyecho

@the_saints

SceneSouth

Facebook

Estate's £100m revamp 'will go ahead' (From Daily Echo)

Southampton RSS Feed

£100m revamp of Townhill Park 'will go ahead' says Southampton City Council

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies