£7m flats revamp needs leaseholder funds

Bournemouth Echo: FACELIFT: The Sterte Court flats, which are set to undergo a £7million with the help of occupants money FACELIFT: The Sterte Court flats, which are set to undergo a £7million with the help of occupants money

Leaseholders of Poole flats due to undergo a £7million revamp are unhappy about having to pay what could amount to tens of thousands of pounds in contributions.

Of Sterte Court’s 134 flats spread over two tower blocks and two low rise blocks, 23 are leasehold with 10 of those owner-occupiers and the remainder sub-let.

Borough of Poole has approved a £7.4milion programme of badly needed improvements to the flats which are on a prominent position on a gateway into the town.

New cladding will provide much improved weather proofing and energy insulation, along with a new roof, windows, heating, ventilation, balconies and ground floor lobbies.

Everyone has been consulted on the plans – however, while the majority is being funded from Poole Housing Partnership tenants rents, leaseholders face estimated bills of between £19,950 and £36,065.

Kevin McCormick of Bournemouth has two flats at Sterte Court which he lets out.

“The £7million facelift of these 1960s tower blocks is a waste of money and a missed opportunity to provide more and better housing for the people of Poole,” he said.

“After the revamp the buildings will still be 1960s tower blocks and the £7milion is unlikely to change people’s lives.”

He said: “This is expensive and is not going to make a great difference.”

Another leaseholder said: “I agree that they do need sprucing up and am willing to pay my fair share of this but I do not need new windows or want a bigger balcony or any of the other ‘improvements’ that they are planning.”

The leaseholder said the bill could be £35,000 to £40,0000.

“This is causing much distress to many as we have been told it will only put £15,000 on the value of our property.”

Joe Logan, chief executive of Poole Housing Partnership, made it clear that the sums were generous estimates and the amounts leaseholders would have to pay would probably be lower.

“It is most definitely worth the investment,” he said.

“If we had done what some people had advised us to do and demolished the buildings and rebuilt the flats it would be three times as high as the cost of the refurbishment.”

He added: “Leaseholders shouldn’t have any further significant costs again to pay over the next 30 years.”

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:47pm Tue 1 Jan 13

stalisman says...

More to the point why should Pool Council tax payers front up the money for these enhancements? Do the rents cover it over the duration of the effectiveness of the modifications?

As the folks in those towers look out over Holes Bay at the christmas tree that is the Twin Sails Bridge do they appreciate who is paying its and their subsidy?

It isn't Poole Council, it is the mugs caught in post thatcherite web of economic exploitation that New Labour furthered and the current mob are quite happy with.

Decades of brain washed folks still listening to 'the bankers' tune.

If and until their is fairness for all, not just the recipients things can only get worse.

I think it obscene to charge one neighbour many thousands more than another. I think it also obscene that 'the right to buy' has been distorted into blood sucking parasitism.

Contradictory? yes. That is what you get from inept social policies born of the lack of joined up thinking.
More to the point why should Pool Council tax payers front up the money for these enhancements? Do the rents cover it over the duration of the effectiveness of the modifications? As the folks in those towers look out over Holes Bay at the christmas tree that is the Twin Sails Bridge do they appreciate who is paying its and their subsidy? It isn't Poole Council, it is the mugs caught in post thatcherite web of economic exploitation that New Labour furthered and the current mob are quite happy with. Decades of brain washed folks still listening to 'the bankers' tune. If and until their is fairness for all, not just the recipients things can only get worse. I think it obscene to charge one neighbour many thousands more than another. I think it also obscene that 'the right to buy' has been distorted into blood sucking parasitism. Contradictory? yes. That is what you get from inept social policies born of the lack of joined up thinking. stalisman
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Tue 1 Jan 13

mysticalshoelace says...

I'm completely incredulous that anyone in their right mind would even contemplate 'revamping' these flats, let alone doing it at a cost of 7 million! That's £52,239 per flat! Just about sums up all that is WRONG with local government.

These eyesores need blowing up not doing up. They must be a complete hell hole to live in, get rid of them and give their occupants somewhere decent to live!
I'm completely incredulous that anyone in their right mind would even contemplate 'revamping' these flats, let alone doing it at a cost of 7 million! That's £52,239 per flat! Just about sums up all that is WRONG with local government. These eyesores need blowing up not doing up. They must be a complete hell hole to live in, get rid of them and give their occupants somewhere decent to live! mysticalshoelace
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Tue 1 Jan 13

bourne free says...

Knock them down , must be a prime site for hotel or similar . Do we need anymore flats in poole , there all over the place . Lets close poole to more benifit holidayers !
Knock them down , must be a prime site for hotel or similar . Do we need anymore flats in poole , there all over the place . Lets close poole to more benifit holidayers ! bourne free
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Tue 1 Jan 13

saynomore says...

That is the problem with blocks of flats it is generally in your contract as a leaseholder that maintainence costs are charged on top of ground rents,the freeholder holds all the cards unfortunately.
That is the problem with blocks of flats it is generally in your contract as a leaseholder that maintainence costs are charged on top of ground rents,the freeholder holds all the cards unfortunately. saynomore
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Tue 1 Jan 13

djkent says...

knock them down
knock them down djkent
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Tue 1 Jan 13

l'anglais says...

They are an eyesore, and a direct legacy of poor town planning 50 years ago.

I agree with knocking them down, but where are the residents going to live?

Thatcher sold off the social housing stock, and subsequent governments have done nothing to improve the lot of the most needy in society.

Decent food and housing should be a birth right for all.
They are an eyesore, and a direct legacy of poor town planning 50 years ago. I agree with knocking them down, but where are the residents going to live? Thatcher sold off the social housing stock, and subsequent governments have done nothing to improve the lot of the most needy in society. Decent food and housing should be a birth right for all. l'anglais
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Tue 1 Jan 13

MPK83i says...

What gives anyone the right to spend 7.4 million of tax payers money ?? Especially on private dwellings. Over priced anyway. Ill do the lot for 4 million!
What gives anyone the right to spend 7.4 million of tax payers money ?? Especially on private dwellings. Over priced anyway. Ill do the lot for 4 million! MPK83i
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Tue 1 Jan 13

live-and-let-live says...

i see its baroness Thatchers fault. again.
i see its baroness Thatchers fault. again. live-and-let-live
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Tue 1 Jan 13

pete woodley says...

Who.
Who. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Tue 1 Jan 13

pete woodley says...

Once they are done up will mr mc cormick put his rents UP.
Once they are done up will mr mc cormick put his rents UP. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Tue 1 Jan 13

rugby_dave says...

MPK83i wrote:
What gives anyone the right to spend 7.4 million of tax payers money ?? Especially on private dwellings. Over priced anyway. Ill do the lot for 4 million!
Why can't you read?! " while the majority is being funded from Poole Housing Partnership tenants rents" also the people living in there are (mostly) tax payers!! I agree this is a lot for making them look pretty! They would be better of replacing them with a move fit for purpose housing instead
[quote][p][bold]MPK83i[/bold] wrote: What gives anyone the right to spend 7.4 million of tax payers money ?? Especially on private dwellings. Over priced anyway. Ill do the lot for 4 million![/p][/quote]Why can't you read?! " while the majority is being funded from Poole Housing Partnership tenants rents" also the people living in there are (mostly) tax payers!! I agree this is a lot for making them look pretty! They would be better of replacing them with a move fit for purpose housing instead rugby_dave
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Tue 1 Jan 13

poolemaninscotland says...

Wasn't these places revamped a few years ago.!!!!!
Wasn't these places revamped a few years ago.!!!!! poolemaninscotland
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Tue 1 Jan 13

apm1954 says...

ask the tories to help they helped you by selling them to you on the cheap real world my friends good old maggie
ask the tories to help they helped you by selling them to you on the cheap real world my friends good old maggie apm1954
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Tue 1 Jan 13

bourne free says...

poolemaninscotland wrote:
Wasn't these places revamped a few years ago.!!!!!
yep / back hander for someone ?
[quote][p][bold]poolemaninscotland[/bold] wrote: Wasn't these places revamped a few years ago.!!!!![/p][/quote]yep / back hander for someone ? bourne free
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Tue 1 Jan 13

MJD says...

Should never have been built in the first place, nor the ones in Lagland Street.
Should never have been built in the first place, nor the ones in Lagland Street. MJD
  • Score: 0

11:29pm Tue 1 Jan 13

portia6 says...

Fully agree these flats are out of date
and should be replaced with family
homes and hotel. The lifts are always
breaking down and i lived there and it was quite frankly, a bloody farse. A swindle. The whole block looked as though it had been ransacked.
Fully agree these flats are out of date and should be replaced with family homes and hotel. The lifts are always breaking down and i lived there and it was quite frankly, a bloody farse. A swindle. The whole block looked as though it had been ransacked. portia6
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Tue 1 Jan 13

portia6 says...

Sorry farce not farse! Oops happy
new year!
Sorry farce not farse! Oops happy new year! portia6
  • Score: 0

12:03am Wed 2 Jan 13

billd766 says...

l'anglais wrote:
They are an eyesore, and a direct legacy of poor town planning 50 years ago.

I agree with knocking them down, but where are the residents going to live?

Thatcher sold off the social housing stock, and subsequent governments have done nothing to improve the lot of the most needy in society.

Decent food and housing should be a birth right for all.
So instead of blame Maggie Thatcher once again for selling off council houses ask where the money went to.
Ask the owners of the council if they thought it was the right thing to do.
And THEN ask New Labour what THEY did about it. Did they direct the local councils to provide new coucil housing and that the government would help? If not, WHY not. After all they were the party of the people.
[quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: They are an eyesore, and a direct legacy of poor town planning 50 years ago. I agree with knocking them down, but where are the residents going to live? Thatcher sold off the social housing stock, and subsequent governments have done nothing to improve the lot of the most needy in society. Decent food and housing should be a birth right for all.[/p][/quote]So instead of blame Maggie Thatcher once again for selling off council houses ask where the money went to. Ask the owners of the council if they thought it was the right thing to do. And THEN ask New Labour what THEY did about it. Did they direct the local councils to provide new coucil housing and that the government would help? If not, WHY not. After all they were the party of the people. billd766
  • Score: 0

12:19am Wed 2 Jan 13

Mikeyunibournemouth says...

I really am at a loss as to know what is going on in this country. I drive through the old part of Poole and the quay area and see the underlying history in the buildings. Then, just around the corner, I see the most awful flats towering above everything that is nice about the town.

Poole has such huge potential but has become such a bodge. People discuss the problems with town planning in Poole - what planning?

The local authority needs to keep it simple stupid and create a town that has a balance of being aesthetically pleasing but also functional.

Projects like the new bridge are fine but they do not work in Poole. They are over complicated, needlessly expensive.

Poole is an historic port with some great assets. It is about time that the council wake up to this or leave office. Do not compound the problems caused by the town's poor quality development in the 60's, knock down the mistakes and start again.
I really am at a loss as to know what is going on in this country. I drive through the old part of Poole and the quay area and see the underlying history in the buildings. Then, just around the corner, I see the most awful flats towering above everything that is nice about the town. Poole has such huge potential but has become such a bodge. People discuss the problems with town planning in Poole - what planning? The local authority needs to keep it simple stupid and create a town that has a balance of being aesthetically pleasing but also functional. Projects like the new bridge are fine but they do not work in Poole. They are over complicated, needlessly expensive. Poole is an historic port with some great assets. It is about time that the council wake up to this or leave office. Do not compound the problems caused by the town's poor quality development in the 60's, knock down the mistakes and start again. Mikeyunibournemouth
  • Score: 0

7:12am Wed 2 Jan 13

l'anglais says...

billd766 wrote:
l'anglais wrote:
They are an eyesore, and a direct legacy of poor town planning 50 years ago.

I agree with knocking them down, but where are the residents going to live?

Thatcher sold off the social housing stock, and subsequent governments have done nothing to improve the lot of the most needy in society.

Decent food and housing should be a birth right for all.
So instead of blame Maggie Thatcher once again for selling off council houses ask where the money went to.
Ask the owners of the council if they thought it was the right thing to do.
And THEN ask New Labour what THEY did about it. Did they direct the local councils to provide new coucil housing and that the government would help? If not, WHY not. After all they were the party of the people.
The proceeds of council housing sell off together with the North Sea Oil rip off, went to the national pot, not the local pot. Which help pay for 4 Million people unemployed due to the De-industrialisation of once mighty Great Britain.
New Labour, got to power on a sell out centrist liberal ticket. Basing their policies on what was popular not what was necessary.
[quote][p][bold]billd766[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: They are an eyesore, and a direct legacy of poor town planning 50 years ago. I agree with knocking them down, but where are the residents going to live? Thatcher sold off the social housing stock, and subsequent governments have done nothing to improve the lot of the most needy in society. Decent food and housing should be a birth right for all.[/p][/quote]So instead of blame Maggie Thatcher once again for selling off council houses ask where the money went to. Ask the owners of the council if they thought it was the right thing to do. And THEN ask New Labour what THEY did about it. Did they direct the local councils to provide new coucil housing and that the government would help? If not, WHY not. After all they were the party of the people.[/p][/quote]The proceeds of council housing sell off together with the North Sea Oil rip off, went to the national pot, not the local pot. Which help pay for 4 Million people unemployed due to the De-industrialisation of once mighty Great Britain. New Labour, got to power on a sell out centrist liberal ticket. Basing their policies on what was popular not what was necessary. l'anglais
  • Score: 0

7:34am Wed 2 Jan 13

apm1954 says...

council house tories ?
council house tories ? apm1954
  • Score: 0

7:42am Wed 2 Jan 13

EGHH says...

They are so tatty I thought they were Council Housing flats!

BTW Thatcher's right to buy act forbade Councils from using any money from the sales to build new council houses.
They are so tatty I thought they were Council Housing flats! BTW Thatcher's right to buy act forbade Councils from using any money from the sales to build new council houses. EGHH
  • Score: 0

8:08am Wed 2 Jan 13

Controversial But True says...

Let's face it. Whatever Maggie touched, just turned to 5H1T. Especially the Belgrano!
Let's face it. Whatever Maggie touched, just turned to 5H1T. Especially the Belgrano! Controversial But True
  • Score: 0

11:20am Wed 2 Jan 13

l'anglais says...

Controversial But True wrote:
Let's face it. Whatever Maggie touched, just turned to 5H1T. Especially the Belgrano!
The Belgrano turned to rust, just like Britain's industrial heartland.
[quote][p][bold]Controversial But True[/bold] wrote: Let's face it. Whatever Maggie touched, just turned to 5H1T. Especially the Belgrano![/p][/quote]The Belgrano turned to rust, just like Britain's industrial heartland. l'anglais
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Wed 2 Jan 13

billd766 says...

l'anglais wrote:
billd766 wrote:
l'anglais wrote:
They are an eyesore, and a direct legacy of poor town planning 50 years ago.

I agree with knocking them down, but where are the residents going to live?

Thatcher sold off the social housing stock, and subsequent governments have done nothing to improve the lot of the most needy in society.

Decent food and housing should be a birth right for all.
So instead of blame Maggie Thatcher once again for selling off council houses ask where the money went to.
Ask the owners of the council if they thought it was the right thing to do.
And THEN ask New Labour what THEY did about it. Did they direct the local councils to provide new coucil housing and that the government would help? If not, WHY not. After all they were the party of the people.
The proceeds of council housing sell off together with the North Sea Oil rip off, went to the national pot, not the local pot. Which help pay for 4 Million people unemployed due to the De-industrialisation of once mighty Great Britain.
New Labour, got to power on a sell out centrist liberal ticket. Basing their policies on what was popular not what was necessary.
Thank you. I did not know that. I was working offshore from 1991 to 1999 and after that I moved offshore permanently and I am now retired and living in Thailand.
[quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billd766[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: They are an eyesore, and a direct legacy of poor town planning 50 years ago. I agree with knocking them down, but where are the residents going to live? Thatcher sold off the social housing stock, and subsequent governments have done nothing to improve the lot of the most needy in society. Decent food and housing should be a birth right for all.[/p][/quote]So instead of blame Maggie Thatcher once again for selling off council houses ask where the money went to. Ask the owners of the council if they thought it was the right thing to do. And THEN ask New Labour what THEY did about it. Did they direct the local councils to provide new coucil housing and that the government would help? If not, WHY not. After all they were the party of the people.[/p][/quote]The proceeds of council housing sell off together with the North Sea Oil rip off, went to the national pot, not the local pot. Which help pay for 4 Million people unemployed due to the De-industrialisation of once mighty Great Britain. New Labour, got to power on a sell out centrist liberal ticket. Basing their policies on what was popular not what was necessary.[/p][/quote]Thank you. I did not know that. I was working offshore from 1991 to 1999 and after that I moved offshore permanently and I am now retired and living in Thailand. billd766
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Wed 2 Jan 13

goatty says...

Controversial But True wrote:
Let's face it. Whatever Maggie touched, just turned to 5H1T. Especially the Belgrano!
Well the Belgrano was full of them. Well done Maggie for sinking it and putting the Argies in their place
[quote][p][bold]Controversial But True[/bold] wrote: Let's face it. Whatever Maggie touched, just turned to 5H1T. Especially the Belgrano![/p][/quote]Well the Belgrano was full of them. Well done Maggie for sinking it and putting the Argies in their place goatty
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Wed 2 Jan 13

oneshortleg says...

Leaving the politics to one side, how many of the flats are leased and how many are direct council lets?
If all the flats are leased then the leaseholders have the right to form a tenants association and manage the building themselves and then decide how much money is spent on the re-furb. In addition a percentage of the service charges since the building was built should have been held in a separate bank account for major works. How much is the council putting towards the project from this fund?
Leaving the politics to one side, how many of the flats are leased and how many are direct council lets? If all the flats are leased then the leaseholders have the right to form a tenants association and manage the building themselves and then decide how much money is spent on the re-furb. In addition a percentage of the service charges since the building was built should have been held in a separate bank account for major works. How much is the council putting towards the project from this fund? oneshortleg
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Wed 2 Jan 13

mike in florida says...

ok,there 134 flats in 2 buildings with good garden areas and parking,and some views
23 flats were sold off on leases,the rest are still council,so whatever the cost we the taxpayers are paying for 111 flats from goverment funds, ie tax
so why not buy back the 23 flats via compulsory purchase at market price,or touch more,100k each roughly,
thats 2.3 million give or take
leaving 5.1 million from the 7 million refurb,replace all tennants in other council property over the next year
then knock the lot down and replace with 60/70 houses at a cost of 5 million give or take
first dibs to all old tenants,if they have kids
sorted for next 100 years,no more refurbs or repairs
ok,there 134 flats in 2 buildings with good garden areas and parking,and some views 23 flats were sold off on leases,the rest are still council,so whatever the cost we the taxpayers are paying for 111 flats from goverment funds, ie tax so why not buy back the 23 flats via compulsory purchase at market price,or touch more,100k each roughly, thats 2.3 million give or take leaving 5.1 million from the 7 million refurb,replace all tennants in other council property over the next year then knock the lot down and replace with 60/70 houses at a cost of 5 million give or take first dibs to all old tenants,if they have kids sorted for next 100 years,no more refurbs or repairs mike in florida
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Wed 2 Jan 13

pete woodley says...

mike in florida wrote:
ok,there 134 flats in 2 buildings with good garden areas and parking,and some views
23 flats were sold off on leases,the rest are still council,so whatever the cost we the taxpayers are paying for 111 flats from goverment funds, ie tax
so why not buy back the 23 flats via compulsory purchase at market price,or touch more,100k each roughly,
thats 2.3 million give or take
leaving 5.1 million from the 7 million refurb,replace all tennants in other council property over the next year
then knock the lot down and replace with 60/70 houses at a cost of 5 million give or take
first dibs to all old tenants,if they have kids
sorted for next 100 years,no more refurbs or repairs
Not a bad idea mike,but dont overpay the greedy leaseholder landlords.
[quote][p][bold]mike in florida[/bold] wrote: ok,there 134 flats in 2 buildings with good garden areas and parking,and some views 23 flats were sold off on leases,the rest are still council,so whatever the cost we the taxpayers are paying for 111 flats from goverment funds, ie tax so why not buy back the 23 flats via compulsory purchase at market price,or touch more,100k each roughly, thats 2.3 million give or take leaving 5.1 million from the 7 million refurb,replace all tennants in other council property over the next year then knock the lot down and replace with 60/70 houses at a cost of 5 million give or take first dibs to all old tenants,if they have kids sorted for next 100 years,no more refurbs or repairs[/p][/quote]Not a bad idea mike,but dont overpay the greedy leaseholder landlords. pete woodley
  • Score: 0

11:09pm Wed 2 Jan 13

TerreHaute says...

pete woodley wrote:
mike in florida wrote:
ok,there 134 flats in 2 buildings with good garden areas and parking,and some views
23 flats were sold off on leases,the rest are still council,so whatever the cost we the taxpayers are paying for 111 flats from goverment funds, ie tax
so why not buy back the 23 flats via compulsory purchase at market price,or touch more,100k each roughly,
thats 2.3 million give or take
leaving 5.1 million from the 7 million refurb,replace all tennants in other council property over the next year
then knock the lot down and replace with 60/70 houses at a cost of 5 million give or take
first dibs to all old tenants,if they have kids
sorted for next 100 years,no more refurbs or repairs
Not a bad idea mike,but dont overpay the greedy leaseholder landlords.
Just to correct a couple of things...

YOU - the taxpayer... don't pay for any of this: It comes from rents paid by residents and from leaseholder contributions.

The improvements are expected to last 30 years so it's far from cosmetic.

Leaseholders should know what they're getting into.... But if you own a property, you'll appreciate that a grand a year on it's upkeep isn't a great deal.

A common problem with the right to buy is that those who did it had only previously been aware of the rental cost and not of how much is spent overall by the owner of the lease or freehold on maintenance.

People want to own the property (at discount) and then not pay for maintenance because it's 'Council'. I imagine those in the private sector would have their own views on this...

BTW: I don't work for PHP or PBC.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mike in florida[/bold] wrote: ok,there 134 flats in 2 buildings with good garden areas and parking,and some views 23 flats were sold off on leases,the rest are still council,so whatever the cost we the taxpayers are paying for 111 flats from goverment funds, ie tax so why not buy back the 23 flats via compulsory purchase at market price,or touch more,100k each roughly, thats 2.3 million give or take leaving 5.1 million from the 7 million refurb,replace all tennants in other council property over the next year then knock the lot down and replace with 60/70 houses at a cost of 5 million give or take first dibs to all old tenants,if they have kids sorted for next 100 years,no more refurbs or repairs[/p][/quote]Not a bad idea mike,but dont overpay the greedy leaseholder landlords.[/p][/quote]Just to correct a couple of things... YOU - the taxpayer... don't pay for any of this: It comes from rents paid by residents and from leaseholder contributions. The improvements are expected to last 30 years so it's far from cosmetic. Leaseholders should know what they're getting into.... But if you own a property, you'll appreciate that a grand a year on it's upkeep isn't a great deal. A common problem with the right to buy is that those who did it had only previously been aware of the rental cost and not of how much is spent overall by the owner of the lease or freehold on maintenance. People want to own the property (at discount) and then not pay for maintenance because it's 'Council'. I imagine those in the private sector would have their own views on this... BTW: I don't work for PHP or PBC. TerreHaute
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Wed 2 Jan 13

nottingham says...

The problem is that like so many high rise blocks they will cost far more to manage over time as there are inherent building defects many high rises and they are not mortgageable.

My comments are based on many years of managing various properties including council high rise blocks.

Most local authorities have demolished this type of building as it is more cost effective over time to offer the displaced tenants a housing association property or another council home.

As for the leaseholders the Council as the Freeholders could offer to purchase the properties at market value plus disbursements and then sell off the complete site as this a prime site it could realize a good sum which would go a long way to compensating the leaseholders and use the £7m towards the new housing this a far better outcome given the other comments in this editorial.

By my calculations the actual cost per owner exceeds £50,000 or £1.15m of the project costs from the Leaseholders. It would be interesting to now the value of the flats as they are now.

As an aside i am not sure what the other tenants of Poole Housing Partnership think of paying the balance some £6m at present day costs not to mention the future costs of management .

A complete re think is required
The problem is that like so many high rise blocks they will cost far more to manage over time as there are inherent building defects many high rises and they are not mortgageable. My comments are based on many years of managing various properties including council high rise blocks. Most local authorities have demolished this type of building as it is more cost effective over time to offer the displaced tenants a housing association property or another council home. As for the leaseholders the Council as the Freeholders could offer to purchase the properties at market value plus disbursements and then sell off the complete site as this a prime site it could realize a good sum which would go a long way to compensating the leaseholders and use the £7m towards the new housing this a far better outcome given the other comments in this editorial. By my calculations the actual cost per owner exceeds £50,000 or £1.15m of the project costs from the Leaseholders. It would be interesting to now the value of the flats as they are now. As an aside i am not sure what the other tenants of Poole Housing Partnership think of paying the balance some £6m at present day costs not to mention the future costs of management . A complete re think is required nottingham
  • Score: 0

1:28am Thu 3 Jan 13

portia6 says...

Back to the drawing board Joe Logan!
Back to the drawing board Joe Logan! portia6
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Sat 5 Jan 13

guisselle says...

I wonder where poor people lived
before social housing? I think it was
private rentals and in London Octavia
Hill used to collect the rents. Council
housing improved life for some as there
were more slum housing.
I wonder where poor people lived before social housing? I think it was private rentals and in London Octavia Hill used to collect the rents. Council housing improved life for some as there were more slum housing. guisselle
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Tue 8 Jan 13

rozmister says...

mike in florida wrote:
ok,there 134 flats in 2 buildings with good garden areas and parking,and some views
23 flats were sold off on leases,the rest are still council,so whatever the cost we the taxpayers are paying for 111 flats from goverment funds, ie tax
so why not buy back the 23 flats via compulsory purchase at market price,or touch more,100k each roughly,
thats 2.3 million give or take
leaving 5.1 million from the 7 million refurb,replace all tennants in other council property over the next year
then knock the lot down and replace with 60/70 houses at a cost of 5 million give or take
first dibs to all old tenants,if they have kids
sorted for next 100 years,no more refurbs or repairs
Because there is definitely 111 council flats just knocking about waiting for use for a project like this...there isn't enough social housing for the people already in need without expecting enough housing for 111 households to suddenly materialise out of thin air.

I agree though they should be knocking these buildings down and building an alternative - perhaps they could do it one block at a time to minimise on the amount of people they need to rehouse.
[quote][p][bold]mike in florida[/bold] wrote: ok,there 134 flats in 2 buildings with good garden areas and parking,and some views 23 flats were sold off on leases,the rest are still council,so whatever the cost we the taxpayers are paying for 111 flats from goverment funds, ie tax so why not buy back the 23 flats via compulsory purchase at market price,or touch more,100k each roughly, thats 2.3 million give or take leaving 5.1 million from the 7 million refurb,replace all tennants in other council property over the next year then knock the lot down and replace with 60/70 houses at a cost of 5 million give or take first dibs to all old tenants,if they have kids sorted for next 100 years,no more refurbs or repairs[/p][/quote]Because there is definitely 111 council flats just knocking about waiting for use for a project like this...there isn't enough social housing for the people already in need without expecting enough housing for 111 households to suddenly materialise out of thin air. I agree though they should be knocking these buildings down and building an alternative - perhaps they could do it one block at a time to minimise on the amount of people they need to rehouse. rozmister
  • Score: 0

1:16am Mon 14 Jan 13

guisselle says...

Only fools and horses reminds me of
Trotter Towers in Peckham!
Only fools and horses reminds me of Trotter Towers in Peckham! guisselle
  • Score: 0

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