Row over lack of social homes in Bournemouth town centre development (From Bournemouth Echo)

It's been tried before --- and it doesn't work.
If you 'force' social housing into a development, the developer simply decides that the value of the other properties in the scheme will decline, and therefore doesn't build anything at all!
Much better sense to use the money to build social housing in areas that have cheaper land values.
You get more homes built for the same money.
Common sense really......

Arjay is entirely correct. If people are "given" housing they have no respect for it and treat it badly, lowering the value of the surrounding homes. This sounds like a classic case of NIMBY-ism.
God I hate lefties.

The council don't want people in social housing in the town centre, they only want the type of people who have money or buy to let landlord who will charge very high rent for town centre houses.
It's been agreed that the developers will give money toward housing elsewhere, ok how much and where will they be built?
I don't think they will tell us this because it will not be enough to build many if any houses. Just look at Boscome the other day only 2 affordable house being built.
Conservative don't want affordable housing in the town centre or they want Uni halls.

Old Before My time - Daily Mail reader? You've just lumped a full category of people together. How is it NIMBY-ism?

sea poole wrote:
Old Before My time - Daily Mail reader? You've just lumped a full category of people together. How is it NIMBY-ism?

It's NIMBY-ism because I expect this councilor wants to build affordable housing as far away from themselves as possible. Wouldn't want to devalue their own property by letting plebs near their compound.

And no, I hate the Daily Mail. It's trash.

It is always said, "Buy the worst house in the best street if you want to make money".
That said, you dont invite the deadbeats from across the tracks to live in your house if you have any sense.
That is the situation here.

Why should the best places in any town be turned over to affordable house some peole work very hard to buy a nice house/flat in the best areas only to find that some have been sold off cheap. There are lots of places you can build affordable house that are not in these nice areas

Old before my time wrote:

sea poole wrote:
Old Before My time - Daily Mail reader? You've just lumped a full category of people together. How is it NIMBY-ism?

It's NIMBY-ism because I expect this councilor wants to build affordable housing as far away from themselves as possible. Wouldn't want to devalue their own property by letting plebs near their compound.

And no, I hate the Daily Mail. It's trash.

Why would you want social housing in town centre. ?
Isn't the town dying enough as it is.
We need to attract spenders to the town.
I don't agree with mixed developments.
It does de value properties. Having social housing in same site and makes them harder to sell.

affordable housing with this council will never happen all they want is flats that will make high profits for their chosen few property developers ................. town center vision is a joke ............... next will be bath road car park and Imax area, ten floors high and a great few for just a few ............. beasley is a joke wonder when people will realize hes in it for himself not the residents of Bournemouth

The solution is to impose a surcharge on developers to go towards providing social housing in another location.
Win win situation. Developer can sell his property for a good price without the obstacle of the property being co-located with social housing and the social housing gets built elsewhere in West Howe/Kinson/Townsend etc.

All this talk about social housing. Surely the point here is affordable housing.
What about the firefighter, police officer and other workers who cannot afford property. Those would be the one to benefit from affordable housing, not the ones who can't afford to buy.

djd wrote:
All this talk about social housing. Surely the point here is affordable housing.
What about the firefighter, police officer and other workers who cannot afford property. Those would be the one to benefit from affordable housing, not the ones who can't afford to buy.

They are usually taken care of by way of 'key workers' developments, shared ownership etc. - and quite right too. These are the people who contribute to society - nurses, teachers, firefighters etc. who don't earn a fortune and often can't afford to buy property.

The problem with social housing is how it is allocated - i.e. to those who do not bother trying to help themselves but feel that the world owes them a living and want everything free. Why should they live next door to those who have worked / studied hard who are paying much more than they are?

Affordable housing is needed for those who fall outside of these categories ie hardworking people (not 'keyworkers') who can't afford to buy and are being financially crippled by extortionate private rents. And hopefully this - and similar developments - would fill the void in this type of housing.

The point is, is that police, teachers, firefighters etc. DO earn a decent wage and live in areas that they can afford, as do the rest of us.
They can do what we had to do, that is, do a second job if you need to live in an "up market area" .
At some point the "hands out" mentality has to stop.

But Conservative Cllr Michael Filer said: “This is a win-win situation. We are working towards a future, a brighter future.......
.
What a load of tosh..... this is the same Councillor who said that the council wasn't milking motorists, you can't believe a word he says.
.
This is about Beesley using public money, OUR MONEY, to prop up his failing Town Centre Vision. It it morally repugnant that at a time when he is cutting funding to vital services to some of the most vulnerable people he is willing to risk £2m on a gamble. His predecessor, Charon gambled £8 - £10m on the Imax fiasco, £3m wasted on the surf reef....... That’s £15m of tax payers money and what have we got to show for it ?. A town in terminal decline, a town overrun with people by druggies and drunks, a town where the vulnerable are left to fend for themselves, a town that can’t attract inward investment (don’t blame the recession – across the UK other towns and cities are seeing major investment, but not Bournemouth). Bournemouth has long been a town where people come to die, now the town itself is heading in the same direction.
.
The message couldn’t be clearer, Beesley & Filer are only interested in lining the pockets of property developers and buy-to-let landlords who make huge profits from rents which many in the town struggle to pay.

I have seen these 'inclusive of affordable housing' projects in prime locations, time and time again in London.

They simply don't work, the affordable housing is snapped up, either by an investor via a back-door, or by a sly qualifying individual who then sublets (often illegally).

I agree with some of the other comments, the biggest scandal here is why the council are using £2m of taxpayers money to make this happen.

This is a prime building site in one of the most expensive and desirable towns on the British Coast, why is it necessary to pay developers £2m on top the profit they'll be making?

By affordable I assume we mean housing association property. You don't put affordable housing in prime town centre locations and you don't mix affordable and ordinary development on one site. No-one BUYS a house close to so called affordable housing. Fact of life.

polblagger wrote:
I have seen these 'inclusive of affordable housing' projects in prime locations, time and time again in London.

They simply don't work, the affordable housing is snapped up, either by an investor via a back-door, or by a sly qualifying individual who then sublets (often illegally).

I agree with some of the other comments, the biggest scandal here is why the council are using £2m of taxpayers money to make this happen.

This is a prime building site in one of the most expensive and desirable towns on the British Coast, why is it necessary to pay developers £2m on top the profit they'll be making?

That is the comment which just about sums it all up. All the rest are red herrings.

Old before my time wrote:
Arjay is entirely correct. If people are "given" housing they have no respect for it and treat it badly, lowering the value of the surrounding homes. This sounds like a classic case of NIMBY-ism.
God I hate lefties.

In making such a comment you are aware that some social housing is occupied by teachers, nurses, police officers etc. It is quite ignorant to make such a sweeping generalisation about such a diverse group of people.

What about a hard-working person who
works on the railways or is a nurse and
has bought their council house? The
family next door still rents from the
council! Its a mine field isn't it? Maybe
we should stop building social housing
and encourage everyone to own their
home!

No wonder England is such a class
ridden society!

the thing so many people do not realise is that not many people can afford to buy their own home these days. if they do not allocate affordable homes, with rent at reasonable prices, then these flats will get bought up by buy-to-let landlords who will then charge extortionate amounts for rent. either way, you would end up with the same people living in them, the only difference would be the private rent would be subsidised by housing benefit which is funded by the tax payer.

people living in affordable housing are not lazy layabouts, they are hard working people that struggle in an overpriced housing market.

would you prefer to help these people, or a money grabbing landlord who can charge whatever he likes knowing you will cover the bill?

Talkingheadera wrote:

Old before my time wrote:

sea poole wrote:
Old Before My time - Daily Mail reader? You've just lumped a full category of people together. How is it NIMBY-ism?

It's NIMBY-ism because I expect this councilor wants to build affordable housing as far away from themselves as possible. Wouldn't want to devalue their own property by letting plebs near their compound.

And no, I hate the Daily Mail. It's trash.

Why would you want social housing in town centre. ?
Isn't the town dying enough as it is.
We need to attract spenders to the town.
I don't agree with mixed developments.
It does de value properties. Having social housing in same site and makes them harder to sell.

Who does really want social housing anywhere near them, it attracts a minority of life's undesirables - rightly or wrongly, and devalues an area. It is not NIMBY to at least recognise those facts and maybe try to deal with them.

Yes the town centre is dying as a place to shop, building posh housing on the Council (OUR) car parks is going to accelerate that process - and of course line the pockets of certain Councillor's best friends, the developers.

(sea poole - boring now, we do get the repeating message that you don't like the Daily Mail!)

Talkingheadera wrote:

Old before my time wrote:

sea poole wrote:
Old Before My time - Daily Mail reader? You've just lumped a full category of people together. How is it NIMBY-ism?

It's NIMBY-ism because I expect this councilor wants to build affordable housing as far away from themselves as possible. Wouldn't want to devalue their own property by letting plebs near their compound.

And no, I hate the Daily Mail. It's trash.

Why would you want social housing in town centre. ?
Isn't the town dying enough as it is.
We need to attract spenders to the town.
I don't agree with mixed developments.
It does de value properties. Having social housing in same site and makes them harder to sell.

Just as well stick a gypsy site in the middle as well.

Funny how those 'less well off' have a car, an iPhone, a laptop each, broadband internet, large flat screen TV, games console etc.
If they saved their money - they might actually be able to put down a deposit on a place of their own without relying on 'social' help.

Many successful inner city housing developments built post war failed decades later when councils subsequently allowed unemployed people to rent side-by-side with the house proud, working class home OWNERS.

hatchepsut wrote:
the thing so many people do not realise is that not many people can afford to buy their own home these days. if they do not allocate affordable homes, with rent at reasonable prices, then these flats will get bought up by buy-to-let landlords who will then charge extortionate amounts for rent. either way, you would end up with the same people living in them, the only difference would be the private rent would be subsidised by housing benefit which is funded by the tax payer.

people living in affordable housing are not lazy layabouts, they are hard working people that struggle in an overpriced housing market.

would you prefer to help these people, or a money grabbing landlord who can charge whatever he likes knowing you will cover the bill?

There should be a law in place to stop this happening - ie ensure that buyers of new homes are actually going to live there for a fixed period of say 5 years or they will forfeit their right to ownership.

The Council with their charity B'mth 2026 Trust have formed a Community Land Trust to build houses for sale at affordable prices; they have planned their first build in Boscombe where the Leader of the Council's argument is that it will bring people to Boscombe, who are in work and therefore they will bring money to the area to spend. The plan for Boscombe is highly contentious because it depends on demolishing the Boscombe Centre for Community and Arts (BCCA), which could be used as an enterprise hub and really bring tourists, increase trade and jobs and therefore money to spend.
All that aside, if that is the aim of Cllr. Beesley I really can't see why his Community Land Trust can't do the same in B'mth. People buying flats through the Community Land Trust, buy them at a reduced price but it also means they cannot sell the freehold as that is retained by the Community Land Trust.
So to fail to offer this in B'mth when the opportunity arises, indicates that the purported aim of Cllr. Beesley for Boscombe is no more than rubbish.

Holes Bay Curve wrote:
Funny how those 'less well off' have a car, an iPhone, a laptop each, broadband internet, large flat screen TV, games console etc.
If they saved their money - they might actually be able to put down a deposit on a place of their own without relying on 'social' help.

Many successful inner city housing developments built post war failed decades later when councils subsequently allowed unemployed people to rent side-by-side with the house proud, working class home OWNERS.

Fool!
Inner city council estates were decimated by Thatcher. Unemployment and Council House sell offs, pitting have against have nots.

Do not assume that wealth goes hand in hand with hard work.
The majority of private wealth created is done so on the back of others hard work.

Home ownership should be a birth right, not subject to Capitalists supply and demand laws.

Well there is meant to be green shots in the economy so I would expect all the government props supporting the housing market to be slowly removed. This will then allow prices to correct and all property will be cheaper. We know now that most of the banks have rebuilt their capital reserves and are in a position to take the hit. The banks are still wanting 30% deposite or equity so I would expect that to be the minimum correction in prices.

There seems to be a complete misunderstanding by some people of the difference between social housing and affordable housing, and also what is failing to be achieved in this situation by the Council with their decision.
Social housing is like Council Housing or Housing Association housing, which is mainly rented.
Affordable housing is where the freehold is retained by a Housing Association or some other such body but the purchaser buys the house on a long lease, so they can only sell the lease with various provisos, which are usually that it cannot be sold to a company and any new family or person is vetted by the freeholder in terms of their need etc.
So basically, young professionals are more likely to be in a situation where they are not earning enough to buy on the open market. This could be because their salary is not high enough or because they have not saved a big enough deposit or both. Affordable housing on the proposed site reported here in the Echo, could be offered and for the life of me I cannot see any genuine reason why it is not.
I also cannot see any reason - other than those expecting to gain from property investment - why social housing cannot be offered for rent. What are people who can only afford to rent a Council house and not buy.....some sort of other specie??
As the entire global economic crisis was built on an inflated market of property investments, it is highly unlikely that any property investors will see the kind of returns they once enjoyed at the expense of the rest of us.
Provide some Social housing B'mth Council.....No?? Of course not, you still imagine there is a gravy train out there!

It is the speculators that have brought about social or affordable housing if it was owner occupiers only and no lettings then the price would drop to an affordable price.

In 1988, Margaret Thatcher declared her ambition "to create one nation by creating a property-owning democracy".

Figures for 2012 has seen home ownership fallings to it's lowest levels since that year (1988).

The average age for buying your first house has risen to 37, soon to be 43, according to the National Housing Federation.
So Thatcher failed in her aim to have every one owning their own home. Not only that she also failed families who have tradionally depended on a housing stock being available to those who could not afford to own their own home by encouraging the selling-off of council houses therefore taking these houses away from those who needed them most. Property ownership is not a right and is not suitable for all but a safe, secure and affordable roof over their heads should be a right for the many caught in the trap of not being able to afford their own home until late into their 30s and others who just could never afford to find the huge deposits required nowadays but would like to live somewhere decent and to raise their families safely.

verityvita wrote:
In 1988, Margaret Thatcher declared her ambition "to create one nation by creating a property-owning democracy".

Figures for 2012 has seen home ownership fallings to it's lowest levels since that year (1988).

The average age for buying your first house has risen to 37, soon to be 43, according to the National Housing Federation.
So Thatcher failed in her aim to have every one owning their own home. Not only that she also failed families who have tradionally depended on a housing stock being available to those who could not afford to own their own home by encouraging the selling-off of council houses therefore taking these houses away from those who needed them most. Property ownership is not a right and is not suitable for all but a safe, secure and affordable roof over their heads should be a right for the many caught in the trap of not being able to afford their own home until late into their 30s and others who just could never afford to find the huge deposits required nowadays but would like to live somewhere decent and to raise their families safely.

Thatcher had the nation's best interests at heart when her Government introduced the Right to Buy scheme. Successive Governments - ie Labour contributed to the current housing crisis, mainly through uncontrolled immigration and housing policy, so it's not her fault. She couldn't have forseen the current situation.

Keep it private or it will be other council tax payers making up the shortfall in council tax from social housing tenants. Council tax will be very high in a prime location.

BournemouthMum wrote:

verityvita wrote:
In 1988, Margaret Thatcher declared her ambition "to create one nation by creating a property-owning democracy".

Figures for 2012 has seen home ownership fallings to it's lowest levels since that year (1988).

The average age for buying your first house has risen to 37, soon to be 43, according to the National Housing Federation.
So Thatcher failed in her aim to have every one owning their own home. Not only that she also failed families who have tradionally depended on a housing stock being available to those who could not afford to own their own home by encouraging the selling-off of council houses therefore taking these houses away from those who needed them most. Property ownership is not a right and is not suitable for all but a safe, secure and affordable roof over their heads should be a right for the many caught in the trap of not being able to afford their own home until late into their 30s and others who just could never afford to find the huge deposits required nowadays but would like to live somewhere decent and to raise their families safely.

Thatcher had the nation's best interests at heart when her Government introduced the Right to Buy scheme. Successive Governments - ie Labour contributed to the current housing crisis, mainly through uncontrolled immigration and housing policy, so it's not her fault. She couldn't have forseen the current situation.

Thatcher had the nations best interest at heart', Oh 'Bournemouth Mum', you do make me laugh!!!!!!!!!!!Also
, it has a lot more to do with Thatchers friend Ronny Regan lifting the controls of off Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, therefore starting the whole housing crisis by allowing cheap loans than with any British Gov (although they have blame to take as well) and their immigration policies. Don't believe everything you read in the DM dear.

verityvita wrote:

BournemouthMum wrote:

verityvita wrote:
In 1988, Margaret Thatcher declared her ambition "to create one nation by creating a property-owning democracy".

Figures for 2012 has seen home ownership fallings to it's lowest levels since that year (1988).

The average age for buying your first house has risen to 37, soon to be 43, according to the National Housing Federation.
So Thatcher failed in her aim to have every one owning their own home. Not only that she also failed families who have tradionally depended on a housing stock being available to those who could not afford to own their own home by encouraging the selling-off of council houses therefore taking these houses away from those who needed them most. Property ownership is not a right and is not suitable for all but a safe, secure and affordable roof over their heads should be a right for the many caught in the trap of not being able to afford their own home until late into their 30s and others who just could never afford to find the huge deposits required nowadays but would like to live somewhere decent and to raise their families safely.

Thatcher had the nation's best interests at heart when her Government introduced the Right to Buy scheme. Successive Governments - ie Labour contributed to the current housing crisis, mainly through uncontrolled immigration and housing policy, so it's not her fault. She couldn't have forseen the current situation.

Thatcher had the nations best interest at heart', Oh 'Bournemouth Mum', you do make me laugh!!!!!!!!!!!Also

, it has a lot more to do with Thatchers friend Ronny Regan lifting the controls of off Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, therefore starting the whole housing crisis by allowing cheap loans than with any British Gov (although they have blame to take as well) and their immigration policies. Don't believe everything you read in the DM dear.

I have never read the DM - never have done.

makingsenseofitall wrote:
There seems to be a complete misunderstanding by some people of the difference between social housing and affordable housing, and also what is failing to be achieved in this situation by the Council with their decision.
Social housing is like Council Housing or Housing Association housing, which is mainly rented.
Affordable housing is where the freehold is retained by a Housing Association or some other such body but the purchaser buys the house on a long lease, so they can only sell the lease with various provisos, which are usually that it cannot be sold to a company and any new family or person is vetted by the freeholder in terms of their need etc.
So basically, young professionals are more likely to be in a situation where they are not earning enough to buy on the open market. This could be because their salary is not high enough or because they have not saved a big enough deposit or both. Affordable housing on the proposed site reported here in the Echo, could be offered and for the life of me I cannot see any genuine reason why it is not.
I also cannot see any reason - other than those expecting to gain from property investment - why social housing cannot be offered for rent. What are people who can only afford to rent a Council house and not buy.....some sort of other specie??
As the entire global economic crisis was built on an inflated market of property investments, it is highly unlikely that any property investors will see the kind of returns they once enjoyed at the expense of the rest of us.
Provide some Social housing B'mth Council.....No?? Of course not, you still imagine there is a gravy train out there!

IMO, the 'complete misunderstanding' of the difference between social and affordable housing has been 'deliberately' perpetuated by the Echo.
You need read no further than comparing the headline to this article, viz: 'Row over lack of SOCIAL homes in Bournemouth town centre development' and its first paragraph: 'A decision not to include AFFORDABLE housing in Bournemouth's first town centre master vision redevelopment has been labelled 'scandalous' by a Bournemouth councillor.
The scandal is that £2 million of taxpayers' money is being used to subsidise property developers, and eventually many buy-to-let landlords, i.e. Beesley's mates. How long before Beastly Beesley joins his chum, Charming Charon back in the property developing/ letting business?
Still, at least all those continuing Bournemouth Conservative voters and others can take consolation in knowing that 'we are all in this together!'

simcal wrote:

polblagger wrote:
I have seen these 'inclusive of affordable housing' projects in prime locations, time and time again in London.

They simply don't work, the affordable housing is snapped up, either by an investor via a back-door, or by a sly qualifying individual who then sublets (often illegally).

I agree with some of the other comments, the biggest scandal here is why the council are using £2m of taxpayers money to make this happen.

This is a prime building site in one of the most expensive and desirable towns on the British Coast, why is it necessary to pay developers £2m on top the profit they'll be making?

That is the comment which just about sums it all up. All the rest are red herrings.

Yep I thought conservatives policy was to get out of the way of business to make profit. so why are taxpayers putting any money into this development? Maybe it's because the companies are the right ones involved mates of said political party!

Council estates were never built in prime locations, so, why the fuss, a roofs a roof wherever it is, and, if the location does'nt suit the tennant, then find a way to afford how to move, harsh, but ultimately fair.

verityvita wrote:

BournemouthMum wrote:

verityvita wrote:
In 1988, Margaret Thatcher declared her ambition "to create one nation by creating a property-owning democracy".

Figures for 2012 has seen home ownership fallings to it's lowest levels since that year (1988).

The average age for buying your first house has risen to 37, soon to be 43, according to the National Housing Federation.
So Thatcher failed in her aim to have every one owning their own home. Not only that she also failed families who have tradionally depended on a housing stock being available to those who could not afford to own their own home by encouraging the selling-off of council houses therefore taking these houses away from those who needed them most. Property ownership is not a right and is not suitable for all but a safe, secure and affordable roof over their heads should be a right for the many caught in the trap of not being able to afford their own home until late into their 30s and others who just could never afford to find the huge deposits required nowadays but would like to live somewhere decent and to raise their families safely.

Thatcher had the nation's best interests at heart when her Government introduced the Right to Buy scheme. Successive Governments - ie Labour contributed to the current housing crisis, mainly through uncontrolled immigration and housing policy, so it's not her fault. She couldn't have forseen the current situation.

Thatcher had the nations best interest at heart', Oh 'Bournemouth Mum', you do make me laugh!!!!!!!!!!!Also

, it has a lot more to do with Thatchers friend Ronny Regan lifting the controls of off Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, therefore starting the whole housing crisis by allowing cheap loans than with any British Gov (although they have blame to take as well) and their immigration policies. Don't believe everything you read in the DM dear.

Everytime a conservative government fiddles with financial regulation we have a massive spike in house prices with wages generally falling or flat. You only have to look at the Heath government when chancellor Barber messed with policy house prices rose and Lawsons big bank in 1986 is now regarded as the root of all the problems now. If you increase money supply through easy credit as happened under Barber and lawson you turn desire into demand thus giving hyperinflation in house prices which ruins economies long term. When Greenspan did this after the dot com bubble went pop it was to rescue their economy sadly the British government had to follow with cheap easy credit. Fiat based money has to price money correctly through interest rates this has not happen since 1986. The key is interest rates to give your money value and not be eroded by inflation. At no point since 1986 has the pound been priced correctly. The only silver lining is we don't have a commodity back currency ie gold if so we would be wide open to high frequency trading and shorting of Gold which would be even more disastrous for the pound. You lose complete control of the value of you currency that is why no one is based on the gold standard any more. Still Mrs T had our best interests at heart???

The Council aren't spending £2mil of 'our' cash, theyre putting in the land which is valued at £2mil, the developer pays for the building works etc

fatboytim wrote:
The Council aren't spending £2mil of 'our' cash, theyre putting in the land which is valued at £2mil, the developer pays for the building works etc

Read the article "cabinet members agreed to invest £2million of land AND MONEY into the scheme."
.
The Bournemouth Development Company was set up to oversee the “regeneration” of the town centre, which really means selling off car parks to property developers. Under the agreement the Council invests land assets (ie car parks) and Morgan Sindall invests cash. In this case Morgan Sindall have been unable to raise the cash to fulfil their obligation so the Council is making up the shortfall.
.
The partnership between the Council and Morgan Sindall is based on a 50/50 share in the assets, the partnership and the profits arising. In reality the Council is providing more than 50% of the assets. So effectively tax payers money is being used to generate profits which will benefit Morgan Sindall.
.
People need to understand what this decision really means – it means that private developers who find it difficult to raise the cash to see through their projects will go cap in hand to the Council for a bail out. Whats next ?, my guess is a £multi-million bail out of the Trevor Osborne Partnership “Nautilus development” next to the Pavilion. Finances should have been in place by the end of the year and things of gone very quiet.

Yea....there is 2 homes in Boscombe being built. What more do you want for a population of 200,000 plus?

I lived in a nice ,quiet area until a housing association bought the house next door. Vile people row all night but they can sleep all next day as none of them work.Do not build any more houses or they will be filled with the new wave of romanians and bulgarians.

manyogie wrote:
Council estates were never built in prime locations, so, why the fuss, a roofs a roof wherever it is, and, if the location does'nt suit the tennant, then find a way to afford how to move, harsh, but ultimately fair.

Turlin Moor, Poole Quay, Sterte, are these not retrospectively considered prime locations.
All council flats in Notting Hill and Westminster are they not retrospectively considered prime locations?

People on low earnings provide the wealth for those on high earnings, so why shouldn't they expect to live in the same areas as the wealthy?

Food, Housing and Heating should not be subject to Capitalist supply and demand laws!

Wageslave wrote:
I lived in a nice ,quiet area until a housing association bought the house next door. Vile people row all night but they can sleep all next day as none of them work.Do not build any more houses or they will be filled with the new wave of romanians and bulgarians.

Xenophobic nimby fool.

If society invested more, through their taxes, in education, then you would be less likely to have unsociable neighbours.

There again, your future Romanian/Bulgarian neighbours aspire to not having fascists living next door.

These flats are aimed at buy-to-let landlords and second-home buyers from the city.

Nobody local will be welcome, a bit like all the retirement flats that always seem to get planning permission.

Without "mass immigration" our aging population would have seen us bankrupt over a decade ago, but keep peddling those lies kids...

Wageslave wrote:
I lived in a nice ,quiet area until a housing association bought the house next door. Vile people row all night but they can sleep all next day as none of them work.Do not build any more houses or they will be filled with the new wave of romanians and bulgarians.

Complain. Don't let them get away with it.

Is it possible these days to include in the sale contract a clause;enforceable; that the property cannot be sub-let? I seem to remenber a similar clause excluding animals and sub-letting on a flat that I purchased.

Gastines3 wrote:
Is it possible these days to include in the sale contract a clause;enforceable; that the property cannot be sub-let? I seem to remenber a similar clause excluding animals and sub-letting on a flat that I purchased.

Yes. It's called a Restrictive Covenant - a clause that can be put into the lease.

More necessary immediately than enforcing a Restrictive Covenant on buy-to-let landlords, would be for the Government to impose a 1% cap on rent increases, as is being imposed on nearly everybody else's income increases; bankers' bonuses excepted of course!

It used to be a standard clause in a lease that a property couldn't be sublet. My first property (a flat) had such a clause. But it isn't the case nowadays, mainly because developers know full well that they wouldn't sell the properties unless they were going to be rented out.

There is a LOT more the Government could do about extortionate rents, but they choose not to for some reason.

BournemouthMum wrote:

Gastines3 wrote:
Is it possible these days to include in the sale contract a clause;enforceable; that the property cannot be sub-let? I seem to remenber a similar clause excluding animals and sub-letting on a flat that I purchased.

Yes. It's called a Restrictive Covenant - a clause that can be put into the lease.

In theory you're right. Unfortunately, restricted covenants can be difficult to enforce and an expensive legal process. The only people who benefit are the lawyers. If the person who applied the restrictive covenant is not prepared to enforce it you're stuffed.
.

At the end of the day people just cant afford to buy and barely afford to rent, the banks should introduce longer mortgages for less per month. Why is it 25 years when people are retiring later earning less and everything else goes up above inflation?

Well we'd all like a house we could afford wouldn't we but let market forces have their way. I resent working my backside off for years on end and struggling to pay for absolutely including a crippling mortgage whilst my taxes are bring used to provide affordable housing for others, its social engineering and its wrong.

juniperberry wrote:
Well we'd all like a house we could afford wouldn't we but let market forces have their way. I resent working my backside off for years on end and struggling to pay for absolutely including a crippling mortgage whilst my taxes are bring used to provide affordable housing for others, its social engineering and its wrong.

Ever thought why you have a crippling mortgage?
Either you are not being paid enough or the interest rates are too high (which I doubt) or you put in an offer for a house that was overpriced you couldn't effectively afford.
The reason you were put in this situation was because your boss is tight, and the banks and estate agents are greedy.
Not social engineering, Capitalist greed.
Finally your taxes amount to nowt and pay for diddly squat, you are actually subsidised from the National pot.

juniperberry wrote:
Well we'd all like a house we could afford wouldn't we but let market forces have their way. I resent working my backside off for years on end and struggling to pay for absolutely including a crippling mortgage whilst my taxes are bring used to provide affordable housing for others, its social engineering and its wrong.

I see where you're coming from. However something should still be done to stop the ridiculous situation of extortionate rents being charged because eventually we will end up in a situation where no one will be able to buy a home of their own and buy-to-let landlords will evenutally own most of the country's property. And that's not good.

Old before my time wrote:

sea poole wrote: Old Before My time - Daily Mail reader? You've just lumped a full category of people together. How is it NIMBY-ism?

It's NIMBY-ism because I expect this councilor wants to build affordable housing as far away from themselves as possible. Wouldn't want to devalue their own property by letting plebs near their compound. And no, I hate the Daily Mail. It's trash.

Well... Personally I'd llike to see far more social housing in Talbot Woods... That's the place where it should be. All those big houses that could be converted into flats. They could probaly have a few half way houses too, you know, for recovering druggies and the like.

Redevelopmet plan... The irony is that this would not be needed if the town centre had not been killed stone dead with the opening of Castle Pointless... If I recall correctly, that was needed to attract more people, shoppers etc... The trouble with the council is that they never think anything through. Is there anything at all that this council has actually got right? For thelife of me I can't think of a single thing. They can't even enforce parking fines any more. Buffoons, the lot of them. Self serving buffoons at that.

Looking at some posts here i think peopple are confused about what 'social housing' is. The council has a waiting list of thousands that increases daily with people who have lost their homes through no fault of their own,Try finding a rental for a 'family' home thats affordable as many of these are either turned into HMO or pulled down for 2 bedroom (1 bedroom and i box room as they used to be called) flats. Where are these houses to be built and how much will go towards them? The places they will choose will have had so many properties created there already that the services will already be stretched to breaking and they want to build more.

"up market" its a block of flats

Social engineering what does it mean
exactly? Oh I know its social climbing
by the working classes who will buy
up the best council houses and then
look down on their neighbors who are
still the poor unfortunate "renters"!

Social engineering what does it mean
exactly? Oh I know its social climbing
by the working classes who will buy
up the best council houses and then
look down on their neighbors who are
still the poor unfortunate "renters"!

l'anglais wrote:

Holes Bay Curve wrote:
Funny how those 'less well off' have a car, an iPhone, a laptop each, broadband internet, large flat screen TV, games console etc.
If they saved their money - they might actually be able to put down a deposit on a place of their own without relying on 'social' help.

Many successful inner city housing developments built post war failed decades later when councils subsequently allowed unemployed people to rent side-by-side with the house proud, working class home OWNERS.

Fool!
Inner city council estates were decimated by Thatcher. Unemployment and Council House sell offs, pitting have against have nots.

Do not assume that wealth goes hand in hand with hard work.
The majority of private wealth created is done so on the back of others hard work.

Home ownership should be a birth right, not subject to Capitalists supply and demand laws.

If you want ownership of a house to be a birthright, how about moving to North Korea? Before 1989 you could also move to Soviet Union (or any of Eastern European satellite countries). Sounds fun? I used to live there. I assure you it's not fun.

Saying that houses should not be subject to demand/supply laws tells a lot of your level of education. How about making spaceships not subject to the laws of physics and sending a manned mission to Mars tomorrow? The Tories need to go because they won't do it! Labour would surely promise it, if only that would make them get more votes.

A big percentage of these so call private flats are going to be bought for renting on. Not the quiet nice place i would want to live

I've seen the curse of affordable housing on a development very close to me in London. Private buyers aren't interested because a proportion of the apartments are managed by a housing association that houses refugees.
And, as private buyers ignore the place, more and more of the apartments the developer/landlord has passed more of the apartments to the housing association. The result is that the area in the vicinity of the block has become a blight in the midst of a reasonably decent area.

Too many Indians not enough chiefs
as they say!

kingstonpaul wrote:
I've seen the curse of affordable housing on a development very close to me in London. Private buyers aren't interested because a proportion of the apartments are managed by a housing association that houses refugees.
And, as private buyers ignore the place, more and more of the apartments the developer/landlord has passed more of the apartments to the housing association. The result is that the area in the vicinity of the block has become a blight in the midst of a reasonably decent area.

Unfortunately this can be very true, although not always the case.

These developments tend to either as you say, degrade into traditional estate type housing, with all the problems that brings.

They can also go the other way and end up being a very expensive development, with the all the property being rented at the highest local rent rates.

This happens because the 'affordable' units are acquired via the back door by investors or by people who defraud the qualification process and then sublet.

A lot of private rentals are properties
that need a lot of work to upgrade
them. The council will put vulnerable
families in them to get them off their
waiting lists!

The problem with Bournemouth is it has become stuck up. People on lower incomes are having to move out of the area and away from family as they are being priced out of the market. Let's face it the town is not as special as "locals" like to think it is. I for one can't wait to move away from a town full of selfish, greedy landlords and developers.

parley wrote:
The problem with Bournemouth is it has become stuck up. People on lower incomes are having to move out of the area and away from family as they are being priced out of the market. Let's face it the town is not as special as "locals" like to think it is. I for one can't wait to move away from a town full of selfish, greedy landlords and developers.

Well said. it shows from all the comments on here. These people think any one in social or affordable housing is scum and will bring down the area.

This is just not true and you people need to open up your eyes to the world around you.

Times have changed, house prices have sky rocketed. affordable homes are not for "scroungers" and low-lifes that won't take care of their homes. They are for hard working families who just want to stay near the area they grew up and have been priced out of the house market.

I am not surprised parley can't wait to get away after reading the attitudes of some of the comments on here.

hatchepsut wrote:

parley wrote:
The problem with Bournemouth is it has become stuck up. People on lower incomes are having to move out of the area and away from family as they are being priced out of the market. Let's face it the town is not as special as "locals" like to think it is. I for one can't wait to move away from a town full of selfish, greedy landlords and developers.

Well said. it shows from all the comments on here. These people think any one in social or affordable housing is scum and will bring down the area.

This is just not true and you people need to open up your eyes to the world around you.

Times have changed, house prices have sky rocketed. affordable homes are not for "scroungers" and low-lifes that won't take care of their homes. They are for hard working families who just want to stay near the area they grew up and have been priced out of the house market.

I am not surprised parley can't wait to get away after reading the attitudes of some of the comments on here.

I am sorry but you're just another person with a lack of understanding of basic laws of economics.

There is a resource, in this case houses and land, that is only available in limited supply in this area (Bournemouth). Because it is a nice area, a lot of people from all over the country want to live there. For every house and acre of land, there are dozens of families that would jump from joy if you gave them a chance to move in there. But, obviously, not everyone can, because there's not enough physical space and buildings - you can't argue with the laws of physics. So how do you go about deciding who, of the dozens, is the lucky one?

Surely, there is only one right way. The one who needs it most!

Naive and leftist people have proposed and implemented various ways of deciding who that person is. Unfortunately, they are all flawed, because they depend on subjective judgement (i.e. by a housing clerk) and are open to corruption and cheating. They are thus horribly unfair.

There is only one way to show that you want to live in this place more than all the other people. You have to be willing to sacrifice more in order to get there than everyone else. For example, say you could have a new car, but the house in Bournemouth is more important to you and you decide you will not get it. That's fine, but perhaps there is a person who could have two new cars, and they have decided they will have none in order to live in Bournemouth. They want it more than you. And they will get it.

No subjective judgement by any corruptible officials is needed.

If the talk about cars sounds a little bit abstract, consider this instead. What if the other people are "more wealthy", and so obviously they can afford to sacrifice two cars no problemo, while you could at best give up your old toaster? Well, that means that they have sacrificed more in the past than you (or your parents, or grandparents) did. While you (or your ancestors) were watching football in the pub drinking beer with their mates, they have been toiling away designing a new piece of software, or spending years or even decades educating themselves. That's why they can sacrifice more today than you can. And that's why you won't get the house.

Do you think it'd be fair for you to get it before them? What is that entitles you to it?

Everything comes down to education,
opportunity luck and circumstances.
Some people are born with a silver
spoon some aren't, fact of life.
There are a lot of clever manipulative
people who will use others as a
stepping stone to get what they want!

guisselle wrote:
Everything comes down to education,
opportunity luck and circumstances.
Some people are born with a silver
spoon some aren't, fact of life.
There are a lot of clever manipulative
people who will use others as a
stepping stone to get what they want!

And some people just sit back and expect everything to be handed to them on a plate.

The only people who are truly hindered by circumstances are the disabled. If someone is able bodied and healthy there is no reason at all why they cannot fend for themselves. It's time the something-for-nothin
g gravy train came to an end.

Go to most council estates or housing association properties and you'll see a satellite dish on every house and a car in every drive way.

Subsidised housing is supposed to be there to keep a roof over the heads of people who otherwise would be sleeping rough.

When did tax payer subsidised housing become a crutch to allow the lazy/greedy to have comfortable to luxury lifestyles for free?

The inclusion of 'affordable housing' in any development is only there for two reasons.

1. As a political appeasement to stop people complaining about councils selling the family silver.

2. To insert socially undesirable families into a better community in the hope it will rub off.

The much bigger question about this development is this quote here:-

'cabinet members agreed to invest £2million of land and money into the scheme'

WHY!!!!!!

Why is the council giving away the family silver, capital it can never get back and putting cash on top??????

WHY???

Molecatcher wrote:

Old before my time wrote:

sea poole wrote: Old Before My time - Daily Mail reader? You've just lumped a full category of people together. How is it NIMBY-ism?

It's NIMBY-ism because I expect this councilor wants to build affordable housing as far away from themselves as possible. Wouldn't want to devalue their own property by letting plebs near their compound. And no, I hate the Daily Mail. It's trash.

Well... Personally I'd llike to see far more social housing in Talbot Woods... That's the place where it should be. All those big houses that could be converted into flats. They could probaly have a few half way houses too, you know, for recovering druggies and the like.

Ooh controversial!

manyogie wrote:
Council estates were never built in prime locations, so, why the fuss, a roofs a roof wherever it is, and, if the location does'nt suit the tennant, then find a way to afford how to move, harsh, but ultimately fair.

David Tennant,is he moving again?

parley wrote:
The problem with Bournemouth is it has become stuck up. People on lower incomes are having to move out of the area and away from family as they are being priced out of the market. Let's face it the town is not as special as "locals" like to think it is. I for one can't wait to move away from a town full of selfish, greedy landlords and developers.

The houses prices are extortionate and
young people can't afford to start a
family. Its cheaper up North but its
cold!

bournemouth council - two words.

****,,


and the second word is

****.

guisselle wrote:

manyogie wrote:
Council estates were never built in prime locations, so, why the fuss, a roofs a roof wherever it is, and, if the location does'nt suit the tennant, then find a way to afford how to move, harsh, but ultimately fair.

David Tennant,is he moving again?

Sorry I forgot he isn't a "tenant" as
far as I'm aware!

BournemouthMum wrote:

guisselle wrote:
Everything comes down to education,
opportunity luck and circumstances.
Some people are born with a silver
spoon some aren't, fact of life.
There are a lot of clever manipulative
people who will use others as a
stepping stone to get what they want!

And some people just sit back and expect everything to be handed to them on a plate.

The only people who are truly hindered by circumstances are the disabled. If someone is able bodied and healthy there is no reason at all why they cannot fend for themselves. It's time the something-for-nothin

g gravy train came to an end.

Its a harsh world out there and some
are stronger than others mentally, it
is indeed harder if you have been
made homeless through domestic
violence causing psychiatric or
psychological ill-health!.

All you right-wingers who have a problem with "lefty thinking".....you do realise that greed and capitalism is bringing our economy to it's knees, again?

Helping out the less advantaged in your society leads to social equality and in general a much more stable economy for all.

Our wonderful coalition government have increased tuition fees so that social climbing is even more difficult now than it was. It is more likely that if you were born in poverty, you will not have the means to work your way out of it. Just because you are wealthy enough to out-price someone in the housing market doesn't mean you have worked hard, and just because you cannot afford to keep up with the cost of housing, doesn't men you don't work hard.

The Tories caused this problem when they sold all the council houses off in the 80s. They were supposed to build more and never did. There is no one here claiming people have entitlement to a "free" home but everyone is a human being and just because they were not all lucky enough to be blessed with brains, or good health or a to be born with a silver spoon in their mouth, doesn't mean they should have to live in squalor and poverty.

I hope that this 3rd recession doesn't bite any of you on the backside, you might find yourself being chucked on the heap with the rest of the poor plebs.