£6.5m scheme to build 50 new council houses in Kinson

An image of the planned homes

An image of the planned homes

First published in News by

BOURNEMOUTH is looking to tackle its affordable housing crisis by building the biggest development of family council homes for decades.

The £6.5million scheme will see 50 two, three and four-bedroom houses built on former playing fields at Duck Lane in Kinson.

If approved, the scheme will be the biggest new family council housing scheme in the town since Townsend was completed in the 1980s. It will also provide a much-needed boost for the local economy.

Bournemouth council has recently changed the criteria for people who can join the housing register but still has 2,250 applicants on the waiting list who are in significant housing need.

Cllr Robert Lawton, cabinet member for housing, said: “As well as providing a showcase site that Bournemouth can really be proud of, this is a £6.5m boost to the local economy.

“Government figures show that for every pound we spend on building, 92 pence stays in the area. We will use local contractors and there will be opportunities for apprentices.

“This will provide much-needed, good-quality family housing that could potentially make a real difference to the lives of 250 to 300 people. They will have a well-designed, spa¬cious, environmentally-friendly home to live in.”

Two acres of the 6.5 acre site will be left as open space and the homes will be significantly bigger and more energy efficient than those usually proposed by private developers.

Following public consultation, the proposals have been revised several times. The access will now be off Holloway Avenue and the new properties will be built at the other end of the site to the existing houses in Holloway Avenue.

The scheme also includes a new community building, landscaped areas, cycle routes and a sunken skateboard park.

All the homes will have two parking spaces and large, secure rear gardens.

Cllr Lawton added: “If this site was being developed by a private developer, they would probably put double the number of properties on there. But this is our scheme and we are focusing on providing really good-quality family homes in a spacious environment.”

The council will fund the new homes with investment from the Homes and Community Agency, prudential borrowing and developer contributions.

It is also looking for other sites across the borough that might be suitable for other council house developments.

Comments (90)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:35pm Thu 28 Feb 13

mw2010 says...

Proper homes at last maybe someone should take note as blandford road hamworthy turning into flat central
Proper homes at last maybe someone should take note as blandford road hamworthy turning into flat central mw2010
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Thu 28 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Thu 28 Feb 13

zacsprat says...

Lets hope the infrastructure can cope,as we struggle with the traffic on the dual carraige way.
Also lets hope the schools can cope with the influx of students!
Lets hope the infrastructure can cope,as we struggle with the traffic on the dual carraige way. Also lets hope the schools can cope with the influx of students! zacsprat
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Thu 28 Feb 13

blahblahbleurgh says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
Not everyone on council list or in a council house is a scrounger so wind your neck in
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]Not everyone on council list or in a council house is a scrounger so wind your neck in blahblahbleurgh
  • Score: 1

1:22pm Thu 28 Feb 13

High Treason says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
That's about it but don't forget the expected influx from the EU next year. Why bother buying when you can get a nice new house for peanuts rent with no worries and perhaps buy it on the cheap in a few years.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]That's about it but don't forget the expected influx from the EU next year. Why bother buying when you can get a nice new house for peanuts rent with no worries and perhaps buy it on the cheap in a few years. High Treason
  • Score: -1

1:36pm Thu 28 Feb 13

BourneRed says...

Excellent news for Bournemouth another reason for people to moan about something.

We need more family affordable homes...but we only want a select few people to be able to buy them....
Excellent news for Bournemouth another reason for people to moan about something. We need more family affordable homes...but we only want a select few people to be able to buy them.... BourneRed
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Thu 28 Feb 13

muscliffman says...

I sense a 'nice little earner' or three happening here. Wonder what the base cost of an indentical housing project would be if it were private-sector initiated and built.

Cynical me says probably way below the £6.5million of public money quoted!
I sense a 'nice little earner' or three happening here. Wonder what the base cost of an indentical housing project would be if it were private-sector initiated and built. Cynical me says probably way below the £6.5million of public money quoted! muscliffman
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Thu 28 Feb 13

skydriver says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
Come along you know very well who they are earmarked for .......the next tranche of Eastern Europeans which flock to these shores next year with a nice new home waiting for them.
Then thay can go on the dole.......oops no said they had to pay for these goodies......what mugs we are in this country.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]Come along you know very well who they are earmarked for .......the next tranche of Eastern Europeans which flock to these shores next year with a nice new home waiting for them. Then thay can go on the dole.......oops no said they had to pay for these goodies......what mugs we are in this country. skydriver
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Rational_Being says...

High Treason wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
That's about it but don't forget the expected influx from the EU next year. Why bother buying when you can get a nice new house for peanuts rent with no worries and perhaps buy it on the cheap in a few years.
With regards to the "EU influx", I think that just shows a clear lack of understanding about housing allocations and also a refusal to see the wider picture in terms of European ascension. I suggest you contact your local Councillor for an explanation about how housing is prioritisted, you may welcome some clarity.

With regards to the EU I think we should remember that when the Polish joined the EU, the transitional controls Britain had ended earlier than other countries. When transitional controls are lifted for Romania and Bulgaria they will be lifted at the same time across all member states giving potential migrants a wider choice about where to reside.
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]That's about it but don't forget the expected influx from the EU next year. Why bother buying when you can get a nice new house for peanuts rent with no worries and perhaps buy it on the cheap in a few years.[/p][/quote]With regards to the "EU influx", I think that just shows a clear lack of understanding about housing allocations and also a refusal to see the wider picture in terms of European ascension. I suggest you contact your local Councillor for an explanation about how housing is prioritisted, you may welcome some clarity. With regards to the EU I think we should remember that when the Polish joined the EU, the transitional controls Britain had ended earlier than other countries. When transitional controls are lifted for Romania and Bulgaria they will be lifted at the same time across all member states giving potential migrants a wider choice about where to reside. Rational_Being
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Thu 28 Feb 13

High Treason says...

Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.
Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job. High Treason
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Wesoblind says...

how many will be given to single mums under 21 who have never worked a day in their life and have kids all with different dads that didnt hang around?

Call me sinical but wait and see.
how many will be given to single mums under 21 who have never worked a day in their life and have kids all with different dads that didnt hang around? Call me sinical but wait and see. Wesoblind
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Wageslave says...

Another green space gone, like Oakmead playing fields. Houses for immigrants. Better increase the police budget too because we are going to need more not less.
Another green space gone, like Oakmead playing fields. Houses for immigrants. Better increase the police budget too because we are going to need more not less. Wageslave
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Thu 28 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

Wesoblind wrote:
how many will be given to single mums under 21 who have never worked a day in their life and have kids all with different dads that didnt hang around?

Call me sinical but wait and see.
We don't have to wait and see, we already know.
[quote][p][bold]Wesoblind[/bold] wrote: how many will be given to single mums under 21 who have never worked a day in their life and have kids all with different dads that didnt hang around? Call me sinical but wait and see.[/p][/quote]We don't have to wait and see, we already know. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Seabeam says...

Well done Bournemouth Council, at last.
50 families saved from profiteering landlords and given a home.
50 housing benefit payments no longer landing in the back pocket of some greedy prospector for substandard cold damp and poorly maintained dumps that the tennant has to maintain on their behalf only to be evicted on a whim.
50 families children with their first ever HOME where they can put down roots and have friends, a life.
The people here commenting sound like it gives them pleasure to see children suffer in sub standard accomodation.
Perhaps they are the profiteering scum landlords who are making money on the back of this countries housing crisis. Like people that horde food too sell later when everyone is starving. Profiteering scum.
Well done Bournemouth Council, at last. 50 families saved from profiteering landlords and given a home. 50 housing benefit payments no longer landing in the back pocket of some greedy prospector for substandard cold damp and poorly maintained dumps that the tennant has to maintain on their behalf only to be evicted on a whim. 50 families children with their first ever HOME where they can put down roots and have friends, a life. The people here commenting sound like it gives them pleasure to see children suffer in sub standard accomodation. Perhaps they are the profiteering scum landlords who are making money on the back of this countries housing crisis. Like people that horde food too sell later when everyone is starving. Profiteering scum. Seabeam
  • Score: 1

3:04pm Thu 28 Feb 13

l'anglais says...

So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list.
50 homes built at 130K each.

1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list?
2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market.

This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.
So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list. 50 homes built at 130K each. 1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list? 2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market. This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place. l'anglais
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Thu 28 Feb 13

blahblahbleurgh says...

Wageslave wrote:
Another green space gone, like Oakmead playing fields. Houses for immigrants. Better increase the police budget too because we are going to need more not less.
Do your research immigrants are no longer allowed on council waiting lists. at least some people will be getting some good out of this green space. you see hardly anyone using it apart from cutting through it anyway
[quote][p][bold]Wageslave[/bold] wrote: Another green space gone, like Oakmead playing fields. Houses for immigrants. Better increase the police budget too because we are going to need more not less.[/p][/quote]Do your research immigrants are no longer allowed on council waiting lists. at least some people will be getting some good out of this green space. you see hardly anyone using it apart from cutting through it anyway blahblahbleurgh
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Thu 28 Feb 13

BmthNewshound says...

This is great news and long overdue. But how long before tenants can exercise their right to buy at a ridiculously reduced price and the development ends up a predominantly privately owned estate. Selling off council houses to tenants was one of the most stupid decisions Thatcher made and helped to create the shortage in affordable housing we are now facing.
.
I’m also wondering why these houses need to be significantly bigger than those built by private developers. Cllr Lawton opening admits that a private developer would have built double the number of houses on the site. With 2,250 people on the housing waiting list this seems like a missed opportunity to give more people a home. There also seems to be a disparity between the councils policy towards how many parking spaces they will create per property compared to the many private developments built in the town over the past few years where there is not even one parking space per property. If a family can afford to run two cars how can the council justify providing them with a tax payer subsidised council house ?
This is great news and long overdue. But how long before tenants can exercise their right to buy at a ridiculously reduced price and the development ends up a predominantly privately owned estate. Selling off council houses to tenants was one of the most stupid decisions Thatcher made and helped to create the shortage in affordable housing we are now facing. . I’m also wondering why these houses need to be significantly bigger than those built by private developers. Cllr Lawton opening admits that a private developer would have built double the number of houses on the site. With 2,250 people on the housing waiting list this seems like a missed opportunity to give more people a home. There also seems to be a disparity between the councils policy towards how many parking spaces they will create per property compared to the many private developments built in the town over the past few years where there is not even one parking space per property. If a family can afford to run two cars how can the council justify providing them with a tax payer subsidised council house ? BmthNewshound
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Thu 28 Feb 13

middleagemum says...

It will be interesting to see how and where in Holloway Avenue the access will be sited, as this could cause even more traffic chaos in a private residential road. I pity the poor private residents, their lives have already been changed beyond recognition over the last few months since the contractors of the LEAF Academy have started their work in the fields at the junction of Holloway Avenue and Ringwood Road. Now even more upheaval and heavy haulage arriving en masse.
It will be interesting to see how and where in Holloway Avenue the access will be sited, as this could cause even more traffic chaos in a private residential road. I pity the poor private residents, their lives have already been changed beyond recognition over the last few months since the contractors of the LEAF Academy have started their work in the fields at the junction of Holloway Avenue and Ringwood Road. Now even more upheaval and heavy haulage arriving en masse. middleagemum
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Molecatcher says...

"Bournemouth council has recently changed the criteria for people who can join the housing register but still has 2,250 applicants on the waiting list who are in significant housing need."

Amazing... Why is it the Council Tax payer's responsibilty to provide shelter for anyone? In my view the council should put the waiting list through the shredder. Where are all of these people at the moment? There are not thousands of people on the streets of Bournemouth... I really do fail to see why the council is involved.
"Bournemouth council has recently changed the criteria for people who can join the housing register but still has 2,250 applicants on the waiting list who are in significant housing need." Amazing... Why is it the Council Tax payer's responsibilty to provide shelter for anyone? In my view the council should put the waiting list through the shredder. Where are all of these people at the moment? There are not thousands of people on the streets of Bournemouth... I really do fail to see why the council is involved. Molecatcher
  • Score: -1

4:10pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Holes Bay Curve says...

Seabeam wrote:
Well done Bournemouth Council, at last.
50 families saved from profiteering landlords and given a home.
50 housing benefit payments no longer landing in the back pocket of some greedy prospector for substandard cold damp and poorly maintained dumps that the tennant has to maintain on their behalf only to be evicted on a whim.
50 families children with their first ever HOME where they can put down roots and have friends, a life.
The people here commenting sound like it gives them pleasure to see children suffer in sub standard accomodation.
Perhaps they are the profiteering scum landlords who are making money on the back of this countries housing crisis. Like people that horde food too sell later when everyone is starving. Profiteering scum.
'Profiteering' to you - to me it's having a good standard of living from rental income.

I sacrificed fancy cars, holidays, big TV's, weekend drinking binges, latest 'must have' gadgets, and SAVED my pennies to afford my first home - the profits of which allowed me to purchase rental properties to house those who did not spend or plan so wisely.

Many council tenants profited from Margaret Thatchers 'right to buy' sell off of existing council properties - I don't recall any of them complaining.
[quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: Well done Bournemouth Council, at last. 50 families saved from profiteering landlords and given a home. 50 housing benefit payments no longer landing in the back pocket of some greedy prospector for substandard cold damp and poorly maintained dumps that the tennant has to maintain on their behalf only to be evicted on a whim. 50 families children with their first ever HOME where they can put down roots and have friends, a life. The people here commenting sound like it gives them pleasure to see children suffer in sub standard accomodation. Perhaps they are the profiteering scum landlords who are making money on the back of this countries housing crisis. Like people that horde food too sell later when everyone is starving. Profiteering scum.[/p][/quote]'Profiteering' to you - to me it's having a good standard of living from rental income. I sacrificed fancy cars, holidays, big TV's, weekend drinking binges, latest 'must have' gadgets, and SAVED my pennies to afford my first home - the profits of which allowed me to purchase rental properties to house those who did not spend or plan so wisely. Many council tenants profited from Margaret Thatchers 'right to buy' sell off of existing council properties - I don't recall any of them complaining. Holes Bay Curve
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Thu 28 Feb 13

High Treason says...

l'anglais wrote:
So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list.
50 homes built at 130K each.

1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list?
2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market.

This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.
"This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.

Supply and demand. At least OAP's forsake many a holiday, never got goods on tick and lived within their means. Now jealous people like you begrudge them their meagre pension and even the state rips them off when it comes to care home fees. Council tenants get a cheap home and free care home fees.
You will find many on the housing waiting list don't even work, many simply have more children as a profession.
[quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list. 50 homes built at 130K each. 1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list? 2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market. This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.[/p][/quote]"This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place. Supply and demand. At least OAP's forsake many a holiday, never got goods on tick and lived within their means. Now jealous people like you begrudge them their meagre pension and even the state rips them off when it comes to care home fees. Council tenants get a cheap home and free care home fees. You will find many on the housing waiting list don't even work, many simply have more children as a profession. High Treason
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Thu 28 Feb 13

mikey2gorgeous says...

High Treason wrote:
Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.
They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time.

Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub!
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.[/p][/quote]They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub! mikey2gorgeous
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Rational_Being says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
High Treason wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.
They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub!
Here here.

Many social security benefits (state pension, JSA etc) are contributory benefits and to qualify you must have contributed a certain number of NI payments which you give as part of your wages. If you have no right to work in the UK it is impossible to recieve the vast majority of benefits, whatever hearsay quotes.

Then of course there's the habitual residents test one must pass before being able to claim benefits such as housing support, Council Tax Benefit and the like.

Come on guys, this is basic stuff!! How can we facilitate debate if there is such a low level of understanding on how the welfare system works?!
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.[/p][/quote]They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub![/p][/quote]Here here. Many social security benefits (state pension, JSA etc) are contributory benefits and to qualify you must have contributed a certain number of NI payments which you give as part of your wages. If you have no right to work in the UK it is impossible to recieve the vast majority of benefits, whatever hearsay quotes. Then of course there's the habitual residents test one must pass before being able to claim benefits such as housing support, Council Tax Benefit and the like. Come on guys, this is basic stuff!! How can we facilitate debate if there is such a low level of understanding on how the welfare system works?! Rational_Being
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Thu 28 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

BmthNewshound wrote:
This is great news and long overdue. But how long before tenants can exercise their right to buy at a ridiculously reduced price and the development ends up a predominantly privately owned estate. Selling off council houses to tenants was one of the most stupid decisions Thatcher made and helped to create the shortage in affordable housing we are now facing.
.
I’m also wondering why these houses need to be significantly bigger than those built by private developers. Cllr Lawton opening admits that a private developer would have built double the number of houses on the site. With 2,250 people on the housing waiting list this seems like a missed opportunity to give more people a home. There also seems to be a disparity between the councils policy towards how many parking spaces they will create per property compared to the many private developments built in the town over the past few years where there is not even one parking space per property. If a family can afford to run two cars how can the council justify providing them with a tax payer subsidised council house ?
When Margaret Thatcher introduced the Right to Buy scheme there is no way she could have foreseen what was going to happen to this country under Labour - ie uncontrolled immigration, uncontrolled benefit handouts etc. etc. She wanted us to be a nation of homeowners and did it with the very best of intentions.
[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: This is great news and long overdue. But how long before tenants can exercise their right to buy at a ridiculously reduced price and the development ends up a predominantly privately owned estate. Selling off council houses to tenants was one of the most stupid decisions Thatcher made and helped to create the shortage in affordable housing we are now facing. . I’m also wondering why these houses need to be significantly bigger than those built by private developers. Cllr Lawton opening admits that a private developer would have built double the number of houses on the site. With 2,250 people on the housing waiting list this seems like a missed opportunity to give more people a home. There also seems to be a disparity between the councils policy towards how many parking spaces they will create per property compared to the many private developments built in the town over the past few years where there is not even one parking space per property. If a family can afford to run two cars how can the council justify providing them with a tax payer subsidised council house ?[/p][/quote]When Margaret Thatcher introduced the Right to Buy scheme there is no way she could have foreseen what was going to happen to this country under Labour - ie uncontrolled immigration, uncontrolled benefit handouts etc. etc. She wanted us to be a nation of homeowners and did it with the very best of intentions. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Seabeam says...

A good standard of living for you at the expense of your tennants. Ithought buying up a necessity like wqter, food, housing when there is a crisis in its supply and profiting from it taking advantage of said shortage was profiteering.
Surely buy to let landlords contributed to the increase in prices putting home ownership beyond the means of these people who now have to rent.
How much of my tax goes towards housing benefit for these overpriced rented properties so landlords can enjoy ' a reasonable standard of living'.
We need a rent control officer to decide a fair rent on a property like before Thatcher to put the brakes on land'ords so all our council tax doesn't supporttheir luxury lifestyles.
Good on Bournemoith council, I can only hope this is the beginning of a massive build of social housing. It will save huge sums of our money paying for one persons greed.
An asset for the people.of kinson.
A good standard of living for you at the expense of your tennants. Ithought buying up a necessity like wqter, food, housing when there is a crisis in its supply and profiting from it taking advantage of said shortage was profiteering. Surely buy to let landlords contributed to the increase in prices putting home ownership beyond the means of these people who now have to rent. How much of my tax goes towards housing benefit for these overpriced rented properties so landlords can enjoy ' a reasonable standard of living'. We need a rent control officer to decide a fair rent on a property like before Thatcher to put the brakes on land'ords so all our council tax doesn't supporttheir luxury lifestyles. Good on Bournemoith council, I can only hope this is the beginning of a massive build of social housing. It will save huge sums of our money paying for one persons greed. An asset for the people.of kinson. Seabeam
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Thu 28 Feb 13

contric says...

i dont think it was bad of m thatcher to sell the council houses what was bad in my opinion is that the money wasn,t ploughed back to build more
i dont think it was bad of m thatcher to sell the council houses what was bad in my opinion is that the money wasn,t ploughed back to build more contric
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Thu 28 Feb 13

blahblahbleurgh says...

contric wrote:
i dont think it was bad of m thatcher to sell the council houses what was bad in my opinion is that the money wasn,t ploughed back to build more
They should of been sold back to the council instead people bought them cheap then sold them on after a couple of years making a small fortune on it
[quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: i dont think it was bad of m thatcher to sell the council houses what was bad in my opinion is that the money wasn,t ploughed back to build more[/p][/quote]They should of been sold back to the council instead people bought them cheap then sold them on after a couple of years making a small fortune on it blahblahbleurgh
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Arjay says...

Over 2000 people on the waiting list... so why is it a good idea to build 'bigger, more spacious' houses, to house only 50 of those families then?

Although 'bigger' is a lovely idea for the chosen few, I can't see that being a very good philosophy, when there is such a shortage?

I can see some real jealousy and bitchiness arising from the decisions that will need to be made to allocate these few new homes.

OK, so there's a 'points' system, but there always has to be a human element to the final decision making...
'you get one ....you don't'.

Smaller, but more homes would mean 'you don't get one' said to fewer folk.....
Over 2000 people on the waiting list... so why is it a good idea to build 'bigger, more spacious' houses, to house only 50 of those families then? Although 'bigger' is a lovely idea for the chosen few, I can't see that being a very good philosophy, when there is such a shortage? I can see some real jealousy and bitchiness arising from the decisions that will need to be made to allocate these few new homes. OK, so there's a 'points' system, but there always has to be a human element to the final decision making... 'you get one ....you don't'. Smaller, but more homes would mean 'you don't get one' said to fewer folk..... Arjay
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Thu 28 Feb 13

O'Reilly says...

Why are the State Pension claim forms available in numerous foreign languages, if you are required to have worked here for so many years - paying a full National Insurance contribution - before you are entitled to it?
Why are the State Pension claim forms available in numerous foreign languages, if you are required to have worked here for so many years - paying a full National Insurance contribution - before you are entitled to it? O'Reilly
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Thu 28 Feb 13

b26b says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
Yes, its those on the list waiting for social housing.


Win win as far as I can see, 50 new homes for those that need it (they will be means tested).Jobs for various trades, spaces for apprentices generated. If the council keep their word and use local trades that is.

More of the same please.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]Yes, its those on the list waiting for social housing. Win win as far as I can see, 50 new homes for those that need it (they will be means tested).Jobs for various trades, spaces for apprentices generated. If the council keep their word and use local trades that is. More of the same please. b26b
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Thu 28 Feb 13

contric says...

i wonder what the population of bournemouth is now compared to 1960 in 1974 a report said there should be no more development along castle lane since then chase the hospital castlepoint law courts rias littledown its rather sad for us bournemouth folk to see it so overcrowded i believe that the outsiders that have come down here have destroyed bournemouth it certainly has changed a lot since my birth
i wonder what the population of bournemouth is now compared to 1960 in 1974 a report said there should be no more development along castle lane since then chase the hospital castlepoint law courts rias littledown its rather sad for us bournemouth folk to see it so overcrowded i believe that the outsiders that have come down here have destroyed bournemouth it certainly has changed a lot since my birth contric
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Thu 28 Feb 13

lionheart says...

Many happy memories of playing BFA league football on Duck Lane pitches.

Shame to see another open space disappear.
Many happy memories of playing BFA league football on Duck Lane pitches. Shame to see another open space disappear. lionheart
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Thu 28 Feb 13

West Howe Sean says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
So what is your definition of a hard working tax payer?
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]So what is your definition of a hard working tax payer? West Howe Sean
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Thu 28 Feb 13

paul parkstone says...

Rational_Being wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
High Treason wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.
They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub!
Here here.

Many social security benefits (state pension, JSA etc) are contributory benefits and to qualify you must have contributed a certain number of NI payments which you give as part of your wages. If you have no right to work in the UK it is impossible to recieve the vast majority of benefits, whatever hearsay quotes.

Then of course there's the habitual residents test one must pass before being able to claim benefits such as housing support, Council Tax Benefit and the like.

Come on guys, this is basic stuff!! How can we facilitate debate if there is such a low level of understanding on how the welfare system works?!
Bulgarians and Romanians are already entitled to work here if they are self employed. Selling the Big Issue is classified as self employed which immediately entitles them to claim child tax credits and housing benefit.
[quote][p][bold]Rational_Being[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.[/p][/quote]They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub![/p][/quote]Here here. Many social security benefits (state pension, JSA etc) are contributory benefits and to qualify you must have contributed a certain number of NI payments which you give as part of your wages. If you have no right to work in the UK it is impossible to recieve the vast majority of benefits, whatever hearsay quotes. Then of course there's the habitual residents test one must pass before being able to claim benefits such as housing support, Council Tax Benefit and the like. Come on guys, this is basic stuff!! How can we facilitate debate if there is such a low level of understanding on how the welfare system works?![/p][/quote]Bulgarians and Romanians are already entitled to work here if they are self employed. Selling the Big Issue is classified as self employed which immediately entitles them to claim child tax credits and housing benefit. paul parkstone
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Thu 28 Feb 13

West Howe Sean says...

Wesoblind wrote:
how many will be given to single mums under 21 who have never worked a day in their life and have kids all with different dads that didnt hang around?

Call me sinical but wait and see.
Sounds like a deserving case to me, they and kids have an uphill struggle to have life that approaches anywhere near normality.
[quote][p][bold]Wesoblind[/bold] wrote: how many will be given to single mums under 21 who have never worked a day in their life and have kids all with different dads that didnt hang around? Call me sinical but wait and see.[/p][/quote]Sounds like a deserving case to me, they and kids have an uphill struggle to have life that approaches anywhere near normality. West Howe Sean
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Thu 28 Feb 13

West Howe Sean says...

High Treason wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
That's about it but don't forget the expected influx from the EU next year. Why bother buying when you can get a nice new house for peanuts rent with no worries and perhaps buy it on the cheap in a few years.
So High Treason you would like to live in a council house would you?

I didn't think so.
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]That's about it but don't forget the expected influx from the EU next year. Why bother buying when you can get a nice new house for peanuts rent with no worries and perhaps buy it on the cheap in a few years.[/p][/quote]So High Treason you would like to live in a council house would you? I didn't think so. West Howe Sean
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Thu 28 Feb 13

O'Reilly says...

paul parkstone wrote:
Rational_Being wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
High Treason wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.
They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub!
Here here.

Many social security benefits (state pension, JSA etc) are contributory benefits and to qualify you must have contributed a certain number of NI payments which you give as part of your wages. If you have no right to work in the UK it is impossible to recieve the vast majority of benefits, whatever hearsay quotes.

Then of course there's the habitual residents test one must pass before being able to claim benefits such as housing support, Council Tax Benefit and the like.

Come on guys, this is basic stuff!! How can we facilitate debate if there is such a low level of understanding on how the welfare system works?!
Bulgarians and Romanians are already entitled to work here if they are self employed. Selling the Big Issue is classified as self employed which immediately entitles them to claim child tax credits and housing benefit.
Correct and it is only recently that politicians have become aware of this 'self employed' scam. But hey! don't expect any rapid legislation to deal with this abuse....
[quote][p][bold]paul parkstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rational_Being[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.[/p][/quote]They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub![/p][/quote]Here here. Many social security benefits (state pension, JSA etc) are contributory benefits and to qualify you must have contributed a certain number of NI payments which you give as part of your wages. If you have no right to work in the UK it is impossible to recieve the vast majority of benefits, whatever hearsay quotes. Then of course there's the habitual residents test one must pass before being able to claim benefits such as housing support, Council Tax Benefit and the like. Come on guys, this is basic stuff!! How can we facilitate debate if there is such a low level of understanding on how the welfare system works?![/p][/quote]Bulgarians and Romanians are already entitled to work here if they are self employed. Selling the Big Issue is classified as self employed which immediately entitles them to claim child tax credits and housing benefit.[/p][/quote]Correct and it is only recently that politicians have become aware of this 'self employed' scam. But hey! don't expect any rapid legislation to deal with this abuse.... O'Reilly
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Gastines3 says...

As a figure for the build has already been quoted,presumably without the infrastructure works required,I just hope the Council are putting the work out for local tender? We do have a couple of chosen company's who seem to do most council contracts and even when they make a complete lash-upmof them ,just get more work? I hope this will be all local labour including some of those under community service orders who at least can keepthe site clean and do basic labouring.
As a figure for the build has already been quoted,presumably without the infrastructure works required,I just hope the Council are putting the work out for local tender? We do have a couple of chosen company's who seem to do most council contracts and even when they make a complete lash-upmof them ,just get more work? I hope this will be all local labour including some of those under community service orders who at least can keepthe site clean and do basic labouring. Gastines3
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Thu 28 Feb 13

muscliffman says...

Could someone properly qualified please clarify this immigrant 'benefits/Council Housing' issue. In above comments we again have conflicting information.

It had been my understanding that immigrants from EU Countries, although not qualifying for routine domestic benefits, are still legally (EU) entitled to immediate UK financial support (in some form) and also have housing rights.
Could someone properly qualified please clarify this immigrant 'benefits/Council Housing' issue. In above comments we again have conflicting information. It had been my understanding that immigrants from EU Countries, although not qualifying for routine domestic benefits, are still legally (EU) entitled to immediate UK financial support (in some form) and also have housing rights. muscliffman
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Thu 28 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

West Howe Sean wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
So what is your definition of a hard working tax payer?
Someone who works for a living and pays tax?
[quote][p][bold]West Howe Sean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]So what is your definition of a hard working tax payer?[/p][/quote]Someone who works for a living and pays tax? BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

8:03pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Arthur Maureen says...

One key requirement could be - UK born, working and paying tax. Think most would be happy with that.
One key requirement could be - UK born, working and paying tax. Think most would be happy with that. Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Thu 28 Feb 13

tramp_about_town says...

New council houses/flats/propert
ies should be functional, compliant and sufficient but no more.This would allow for maximum places to be built with lowest costs. Enough said.
New council houses/flats/propert ies should be functional, compliant and sufficient but no more.This would allow for maximum places to be built with lowest costs. Enough said. tramp_about_town
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Thu 28 Feb 13

manana says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
I agree with you..if these houses were going to key workers, people who actually pay into the system, then fine, but they are bound to go to people who dont work and breed like rabbits and hold their hands out because ;ITS MY RIGHT;.......
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]I agree with you..if these houses were going to key workers, people who actually pay into the system, then fine, but they are bound to go to people who dont work and breed like rabbits and hold their hands out because ;ITS MY RIGHT;....... manana
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Bosmike says...

European people coming into town calling at Big issue office saying they are homeless,Big issue office saying buy these issues and sell them on the streets for two eight hour days that is classed as full time employment entitling you to housing and benefits is this right????
European people coming into town calling at Big issue office saying they are homeless,Big issue office saying buy these issues and sell them on the streets for two eight hour days that is classed as full time employment entitling you to housing and benefits is this right???? Bosmike
  • Score: 0

10:06pm Thu 28 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

manana wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
I agree with you..if these houses were going to key workers, people who actually pay into the system, then fine, but they are bound to go to people who dont work and breed like rabbits and hold their hands out because ;ITS MY RIGHT;.......
Exactly. How about allocating these homes to former students who have just left uni and are embarking on their careers? Or people who have jobs but aren't earning much - or nurses, teachers etc?

But no, they'll be given to idle feckless dossers who have a sense of entitlement. Disgusting.
[quote][p][bold]manana[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]I agree with you..if these houses were going to key workers, people who actually pay into the system, then fine, but they are bound to go to people who dont work and breed like rabbits and hold their hands out because ;ITS MY RIGHT;.......[/p][/quote]Exactly. How about allocating these homes to former students who have just left uni and are embarking on their careers? Or people who have jobs but aren't earning much - or nurses, teachers etc? But no, they'll be given to idle feckless dossers who have a sense of entitlement. Disgusting. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Thu 28 Feb 13

live-and-let-live says...

£6.5 million???? for 50 houses? i demand a recount. thats crazy money
£6.5 million???? for 50 houses? i demand a recount. thats crazy money live-and-let-live
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Thu 28 Feb 13

l'anglais says...

High Treason wrote:
l'anglais wrote:
So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list.
50 homes built at 130K each.

1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list?
2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market.

This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.
"This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.

Supply and demand. At least OAP's forsake many a holiday, never got goods on tick and lived within their means. Now jealous people like you begrudge them their meagre pension and even the state rips them off when it comes to care home fees. Council tenants get a cheap home and free care home fees.
You will find many on the housing waiting list don't even work, many simply have more children as a profession.
Ah yes, dear old supply and demand, the capitalists get out clause.

Well the demand for housing happens to be there, what ever happened to the supply?
The OAP's accumulated their pensions in investment portfolios overseas, rather than in dear old blighty.
Result being, no industry, just the servicing of others tat.

If you are just living on a state pension Mr OAP, you've only got yourself to blame. It's a shame you have to cash in the UNEARNED equity to pay for your care in old age, in reality it's your grandkids paying higher housing prices to keep you alive.
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list. 50 homes built at 130K each. 1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list? 2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market. This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.[/p][/quote]"This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place. Supply and demand. At least OAP's forsake many a holiday, never got goods on tick and lived within their means. Now jealous people like you begrudge them their meagre pension and even the state rips them off when it comes to care home fees. Council tenants get a cheap home and free care home fees. You will find many on the housing waiting list don't even work, many simply have more children as a profession.[/p][/quote]Ah yes, dear old supply and demand, the capitalists get out clause. Well the demand for housing happens to be there, what ever happened to the supply? The OAP's accumulated their pensions in investment portfolios overseas, rather than in dear old blighty. Result being, no industry, just the servicing of others tat. If you are just living on a state pension Mr OAP, you've only got yourself to blame. It's a shame you have to cash in the UNEARNED equity to pay for your care in old age, in reality it's your grandkids paying higher housing prices to keep you alive. l'anglais
  • Score: 0

11:30pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Dr Strangelove says...

muscliffman wrote:
I sense a 'nice little earner' or three happening here. Wonder what the base cost of an indentical housing project would be if it were private-sector initiated and built.

Cynical me says probably way below the £6.5million of public money quoted!
Yes £6.5 million seems an enormous amount of money for 50 rabbit hutches. I think it will be a private builder in the end who will try to make as much margin as possible at the tax payer expense and the quality will be dreadful no doubt.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: I sense a 'nice little earner' or three happening here. Wonder what the base cost of an indentical housing project would be if it were private-sector initiated and built. Cynical me says probably way below the £6.5million of public money quoted![/p][/quote]Yes £6.5 million seems an enormous amount of money for 50 rabbit hutches. I think it will be a private builder in the end who will try to make as much margin as possible at the tax payer expense and the quality will be dreadful no doubt. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Dr Strangelove says...

manana wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
I agree with you..if these houses were going to key workers, people who actually pay into the system, then fine, but they are bound to go to people who dont work and breed like rabbits and hold their hands out because ;ITS MY RIGHT;.......
Youve been reading too much dailymail myth and hate spreading, you should go to the doctors and both get your blood pressure tested.
[quote][p][bold]manana[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]I agree with you..if these houses were going to key workers, people who actually pay into the system, then fine, but they are bound to go to people who dont work and breed like rabbits and hold their hands out because ;ITS MY RIGHT;.......[/p][/quote]Youve been reading too much dailymail myth and hate spreading, you should go to the doctors and both get your blood pressure tested. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

11:39pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Dr Strangelove says...

Arthur Maureen wrote:
One key requirement could be - UK born, working and paying tax. Think most would be happy with that.
Yep your right we don't want those Aussies and kiwi's coming, their over paid over se&ed and over here.
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Maureen[/bold] wrote: One key requirement could be - UK born, working and paying tax. Think most would be happy with that.[/p][/quote]Yep your right we don't want those Aussies and kiwi's coming, their over paid over se&ed and over here. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

12:57am Fri 1 Mar 13

AdelaidePete says...

Oh come on Strangelove, As a U.K. born (Kinson bred) who worked for years as a teacher in the U.K. and now lives in Oz, like many others, what makes you think we'd want to come back to live? ...Though I will be over to visit the folks in a few weeks, and, well maybe we are oversexed, it's all that sunshine and warmth. I can understand why you are jealous.
Oh come on Strangelove, As a U.K. born (Kinson bred) who worked for years as a teacher in the U.K. and now lives in Oz, like many others, what makes you think we'd want to come back to live? ...Though I will be over to visit the folks in a few weeks, and, well maybe we are oversexed, it's all that sunshine and warmth. I can understand why you are jealous. AdelaidePete
  • Score: 0

2:11am Fri 1 Mar 13

Redgolfer says...

Just a thought, since when has Duck Lane been in Kinson. as far as I understood it was West Howe and if the Council are looking for more land watch out Queen's Park Golf Course, oh no it was given to the town as a public open space, as if that mattered to this Council.
Just a thought, since when has Duck Lane been in Kinson. as far as I understood it was West Howe and if the Council are looking for more land watch out Queen's Park Golf Course, oh no it was given to the town as a public open space, as if that mattered to this Council. Redgolfer
  • Score: 0

8:09am Fri 1 Mar 13

retry69 says...

Redgolfer wrote:
Just a thought, since when has Duck Lane been in Kinson. as far as I understood it was West Howe and if the Council are looking for more land watch out Queen's Park Golf Course, oh no it was given to the town as a public open space, as if that mattered to this Council.
Nice break from the usual banter above.Always was a debatable point Kinson/West Howe.Duck Lane has great memories for me spent a lot of my youth in and around there with the "White Hut", met my wife of 36 years in that field( no rude comments please) in fact "our tree" stands along Holloway Avenue end, Duck Lane always was a great meeting place before and after school/youth clubs and i for one will feel a little sadness to see it covered up this way,gotta go im filling up
[quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: Just a thought, since when has Duck Lane been in Kinson. as far as I understood it was West Howe and if the Council are looking for more land watch out Queen's Park Golf Course, oh no it was given to the town as a public open space, as if that mattered to this Council.[/p][/quote]Nice break from the usual banter above.Always was a debatable point Kinson/West Howe.Duck Lane has great memories for me spent a lot of my youth in and around there with the "White Hut", met my wife of 36 years in that field( no rude comments please) in fact "our tree" stands along Holloway Avenue end, Duck Lane always was a great meeting place before and after school/youth clubs and i for one will feel a little sadness to see it covered up this way,gotta go im filling up retry69
  • Score: 0

10:12am Fri 1 Mar 13

snowy123 says...

Redgolfer wrote:
Just a thought, since when has Duck Lane been in Kinson. as far as I understood it was West Howe and if the Council are looking for more land watch out Queen's Park Golf Course, oh no it was given to the town as a public open space, as if that mattered to this Council.
Don't be silly ! Queens park is far too up market for social housing. They would rather cram as much as they can in Kinson / West Howe and Boscombe and then wonder why these areas have high levels of poverty etc. Perhaps if the housing was spread around these wouldn't have such an impact.

Kinson & West Howe has already had more than it's fair share of these " mini ghettos ". Keeble Road, Oakmead Gardens, Grower Gardens, St Georges Drive etc. The council never seem to learn by it's mistakes.
The houses are mainly given to people who think they they have a right to be given them, then they trash them within weeks. They are paying no rent for them so have no respect for them.
I was lucky enough to be allocated a brand new house myself a few years ago and was very grateful for it but some of the other new tenants wrecked their homes. Within weeks there were broken windows, missing letterboxes and meter cupboard doors hanging off. This was along with the incessant loud music and drinking on the doorstep pretty much all day. Within a year or so, the few working couples who were actually paying rent were trying desperately to move away. Those that were on benefits just had no respect and a strong belief in entitlement.
[quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: Just a thought, since when has Duck Lane been in Kinson. as far as I understood it was West Howe and if the Council are looking for more land watch out Queen's Park Golf Course, oh no it was given to the town as a public open space, as if that mattered to this Council.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly ! Queens park is far too up market for social housing. They would rather cram as much as they can in Kinson / West Howe and Boscombe and then wonder why these areas have high levels of poverty etc. Perhaps if the housing was spread around these wouldn't have such an impact. Kinson & West Howe has already had more than it's fair share of these " mini ghettos ". Keeble Road, Oakmead Gardens, Grower Gardens, St Georges Drive etc. The council never seem to learn by it's mistakes. The houses are mainly given to people who think they they have a right to be given them, then they trash them within weeks. They are paying no rent for them so have no respect for them. I was lucky enough to be allocated a brand new house myself a few years ago and was very grateful for it but some of the other new tenants wrecked their homes. Within weeks there were broken windows, missing letterboxes and meter cupboard doors hanging off. This was along with the incessant loud music and drinking on the doorstep pretty much all day. Within a year or so, the few working couples who were actually paying rent were trying desperately to move away. Those that were on benefits just had no respect and a strong belief in entitlement. snowy123
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Azphreal says...

I notice many anti benefit posts here and i am sure the Daily Mail is proud of you. Do you have ANY idea how many people who are not on benefits are on the housing list? Do you think only people on benefits are allowed to apply? Have you any idea how many working families need housing because they are in properties that are too small (many rented as they can not afford to buy).
I notice many anti benefit posts here and i am sure the Daily Mail is proud of you. Do you have ANY idea how many people who are not on benefits are on the housing list? Do you think only people on benefits are allowed to apply? Have you any idea how many working families need housing because they are in properties that are too small (many rented as they can not afford to buy). Azphreal
  • Score: -1

12:24pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Brock_and_Roll says...

Please excuse all the UKIP types that seem to be infesting all the message boards - they are very excitable at the moment, but with our electoral system we all know how many seats they will actually win at the next election.......

All seems like a good idea to me. The council can access funds to build the houses cheaper than any private developers so financially it seems the best way to provide affordable housing to rent for those are are unable or dont want to buy.

The insinuation that everyone who lives in a council house is a benefit scrounging ner do well (and probably a foreign one) is actually ignorant as well as offensive - it was only 30 or so years ago that a large percentage of the British population happily lived in council houses, working hard all their lives!
Please excuse all the UKIP types that seem to be infesting all the message boards - they are very excitable at the moment, but with our electoral system we all know how many seats they will actually win at the next election....... All seems like a good idea to me. The council can access funds to build the houses cheaper than any private developers so financially it seems the best way to provide affordable housing to rent for those are are unable or dont want to buy. The insinuation that everyone who lives in a council house is a benefit scrounging ner do well (and probably a foreign one) is actually ignorant as well as offensive - it was only 30 or so years ago that a large percentage of the British population happily lived in council houses, working hard all their lives! Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Dr Strangelove says...

AdelaidePete wrote:
Oh come on Strangelove, As a U.K. born (Kinson bred) who worked for years as a teacher in the U.K. and now lives in Oz, like many others, what makes you think we'd want to come back to live? ...Though I will be over to visit the folks in a few weeks, and, well maybe we are oversexed, it's all that sunshine and warmth. I can understand why you are jealous.
It was a ridiculous comment by me to underline how ridiculous that ladies post was and some of the others. It dosent take much for racisium and classism to get a grip, just look at UKIP xenophobic tripe from the last century yet they had a big vote in eastleigh yesterday.
[quote][p][bold]AdelaidePete[/bold] wrote: Oh come on Strangelove, As a U.K. born (Kinson bred) who worked for years as a teacher in the U.K. and now lives in Oz, like many others, what makes you think we'd want to come back to live? ...Though I will be over to visit the folks in a few weeks, and, well maybe we are oversexed, it's all that sunshine and warmth. I can understand why you are jealous.[/p][/quote]It was a ridiculous comment by me to underline how ridiculous that ladies post was and some of the others. It dosent take much for racisium and classism to get a grip, just look at UKIP xenophobic tripe from the last century yet they had a big vote in eastleigh yesterday. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Reeve 7 says...

Redgolfer is quite correct it is in West Howe
why not build smaller properties for senior citizens who at the moment are renting 3 & 4 bedroom social housing, along with a medical centre
This would free up those properties occupied by just one person with gardens too large to keep tidy. Then a larger number would be satisfied
Whilst I do not agree wholly with the loss of this recreation area it should at least stop the motor bikers who continually ride at every hour of day and night !
And no sign of a police presence in spite of notifying them
Redgolfer is quite correct it is in West Howe why not build smaller properties for senior citizens who at the moment are renting 3 & 4 bedroom social housing, along with a medical centre This would free up those properties occupied by just one person with gardens too large to keep tidy. Then a larger number would be satisfied Whilst I do not agree wholly with the loss of this recreation area it should at least stop the motor bikers who continually ride at every hour of day and night ! And no sign of a police presence in spite of notifying them Reeve 7
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Fri 1 Mar 13

markelkins says...

The fact that Cllr Robert Lawton, cabinet member for housing makes a great deal over the economic benefits of this plan illustrates that all this is primarily about is implementing the UK Government's recent plan to use house building to kick start growth in the economy.

There are however some serious environmental issues in this reckless plan. First and foremost the UK is nowhere near self-sufficient in feeding itself and increasingly has to import more and more food as the population is allowed to rise largely unchecked with more and more green space concreted over. More imports mean more transport c02 and other emissions. Also because more food imports are needed means loss of total control of knowing exactly what it is those food imports contain. For example it could be beef but it could be horse, donkey etc. In addition because of the lack of green space UK farmers are forced into being more and more productive. A major issue caused by this is the plan to kill off loads of badgers in the belief this will basically up the production of British beef.

Secondly more development means less green space for wildlife and also for the human population. Research shows that people who live near green space such as a park have better health and live longer.

Thirdly more housing means more C02 and other emissions needed to light and heat it. More water is needed. Fine if you know future water supply is ok but not fine with the unknown situation we now have that can at one time mean a drought and another time flooding. As we all know concreting over too much land is not exactly a safe move with regard to flood risk.

Fourthly with global warming although we are dealing with an unknown why build over land that is green and fertile in comparison to many other parts of the world? This would appear to be complete and utter collective madness to favour concrete to food production in the UK.

Fifthly why should we accept a greater density of housing in the Bournemouth area just because Central Government says we should.
Not long before the Coalition Government came into being the Tories were running a campaign to stop Gardens being built on. Christopher Chope MP for Christchurch was at the forefront of this campaign. I wonder what he has to say about this now? In addition the Tories were also making noises around the same time that they would leave it up to local councils to decide the level of house building if any that took place in there area.

Even more perverse the UK Government Funding for Lending programme is aimed at keeping house prices high by diverting funding to the housing market (listen to what the experts say in the last edition of Moneybox in 2012 broadcast on radio 4 about this if you don't believe me). The Government talks of the need to build more houses whilst at the same time propping up house prices. The reason they won't let them fall and let the public see the true level of demand and supply is because the UK Government is petrified of the potential toxic negative equity that is around. Thus the UK Government is being very dishonest indeed over trying to tell the public a huge house building programme must take place and the consequent need to concrete over huge areas of green belt. A real good example of a complete disregard for the environment.
The fact that Cllr Robert Lawton, cabinet member for housing makes a great deal over the economic benefits of this plan illustrates that all this is primarily about is implementing the UK Government's recent plan to use house building to kick start growth in the economy. There are however some serious environmental issues in this reckless plan. First and foremost the UK is nowhere near self-sufficient in feeding itself and increasingly has to import more and more food as the population is allowed to rise largely unchecked with more and more green space concreted over. More imports mean more transport c02 and other emissions. Also because more food imports are needed means loss of total control of knowing exactly what it is those food imports contain. For example it could be beef but it could be horse, donkey etc. In addition because of the lack of green space UK farmers are forced into being more and more productive. A major issue caused by this is the plan to kill off loads of badgers in the belief this will basically up the production of British beef. Secondly more development means less green space for wildlife and also for the human population. Research shows that people who live near green space such as a park have better health and live longer. Thirdly more housing means more C02 and other emissions needed to light and heat it. More water is needed. Fine if you know future water supply is ok but not fine with the unknown situation we now have that can at one time mean a drought and another time flooding. As we all know concreting over too much land is not exactly a safe move with regard to flood risk. Fourthly with global warming although we are dealing with an unknown why build over land that is green and fertile in comparison to many other parts of the world? This would appear to be complete and utter collective madness to favour concrete to food production in the UK. Fifthly why should we accept a greater density of housing in the Bournemouth area just because Central Government says we should. Not long before the Coalition Government came into being the Tories were running a campaign to stop Gardens being built on. Christopher Chope MP for Christchurch was at the forefront of this campaign. I wonder what he has to say about this now? In addition the Tories were also making noises around the same time that they would leave it up to local councils to decide the level of house building if any that took place in there area. Even more perverse the UK Government Funding for Lending programme is aimed at keeping house prices high by diverting funding to the housing market (listen to what the experts say in the last edition of Moneybox in 2012 broadcast on radio 4 about this if you don't believe me). The Government talks of the need to build more houses whilst at the same time propping up house prices. The reason they won't let them fall and let the public see the true level of demand and supply is because the UK Government is petrified of the potential toxic negative equity that is around. Thus the UK Government is being very dishonest indeed over trying to tell the public a huge house building programme must take place and the consequent need to concrete over huge areas of green belt. A real good example of a complete disregard for the environment. markelkins
  • Score: 0

9:40pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Arjay says...

markelkins wrote:
The fact that Cllr Robert Lawton, cabinet member for housing makes a great deal over the economic benefits of this plan illustrates that all this is primarily about is implementing the UK Government's recent plan to use house building to kick start growth in the economy.

There are however some serious environmental issues in this reckless plan. First and foremost the UK is nowhere near self-sufficient in feeding itself and increasingly has to import more and more food as the population is allowed to rise largely unchecked with more and more green space concreted over. More imports mean more transport c02 and other emissions. Also because more food imports are needed means loss of total control of knowing exactly what it is those food imports contain. For example it could be beef but it could be horse, donkey etc. In addition because of the lack of green space UK farmers are forced into being more and more productive. A major issue caused by this is the plan to kill off loads of badgers in the belief this will basically up the production of British beef.

Secondly more development means less green space for wildlife and also for the human population. Research shows that people who live near green space such as a park have better health and live longer.

Thirdly more housing means more C02 and other emissions needed to light and heat it. More water is needed. Fine if you know future water supply is ok but not fine with the unknown situation we now have that can at one time mean a drought and another time flooding. As we all know concreting over too much land is not exactly a safe move with regard to flood risk.

Fourthly with global warming although we are dealing with an unknown why build over land that is green and fertile in comparison to many other parts of the world? This would appear to be complete and utter collective madness to favour concrete to food production in the UK.

Fifthly why should we accept a greater density of housing in the Bournemouth area just because Central Government says we should.
Not long before the Coalition Government came into being the Tories were running a campaign to stop Gardens being built on. Christopher Chope MP for Christchurch was at the forefront of this campaign. I wonder what he has to say about this now? In addition the Tories were also making noises around the same time that they would leave it up to local councils to decide the level of house building if any that took place in there area.

Even more perverse the UK Government Funding for Lending programme is aimed at keeping house prices high by diverting funding to the housing market (listen to what the experts say in the last edition of Moneybox in 2012 broadcast on radio 4 about this if you don't believe me). The Government talks of the need to build more houses whilst at the same time propping up house prices. The reason they won't let them fall and let the public see the true level of demand and supply is because the UK Government is petrified of the potential toxic negative equity that is around. Thus the UK Government is being very dishonest indeed over trying to tell the public a huge house building programme must take place and the consequent need to concrete over huge areas of green belt. A real good example of a complete disregard for the environment.
Sense of perspective needed here I think.
While it may seem at times as if the whole of this country is being turned into a 'concrete jungle', the actual percentage of land currently 'under concrete' in England is slightly less than 2.3%. So very nearly 98% of land remains 'green' space. (Source: BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-18623096 )

I'm inclined to think some of the concerns raised here may be a little overstated......
[quote][p][bold]markelkins[/bold] wrote: The fact that Cllr Robert Lawton, cabinet member for housing makes a great deal over the economic benefits of this plan illustrates that all this is primarily about is implementing the UK Government's recent plan to use house building to kick start growth in the economy. There are however some serious environmental issues in this reckless plan. First and foremost the UK is nowhere near self-sufficient in feeding itself and increasingly has to import more and more food as the population is allowed to rise largely unchecked with more and more green space concreted over. More imports mean more transport c02 and other emissions. Also because more food imports are needed means loss of total control of knowing exactly what it is those food imports contain. For example it could be beef but it could be horse, donkey etc. In addition because of the lack of green space UK farmers are forced into being more and more productive. A major issue caused by this is the plan to kill off loads of badgers in the belief this will basically up the production of British beef. Secondly more development means less green space for wildlife and also for the human population. Research shows that people who live near green space such as a park have better health and live longer. Thirdly more housing means more C02 and other emissions needed to light and heat it. More water is needed. Fine if you know future water supply is ok but not fine with the unknown situation we now have that can at one time mean a drought and another time flooding. As we all know concreting over too much land is not exactly a safe move with regard to flood risk. Fourthly with global warming although we are dealing with an unknown why build over land that is green and fertile in comparison to many other parts of the world? This would appear to be complete and utter collective madness to favour concrete to food production in the UK. Fifthly why should we accept a greater density of housing in the Bournemouth area just because Central Government says we should. Not long before the Coalition Government came into being the Tories were running a campaign to stop Gardens being built on. Christopher Chope MP for Christchurch was at the forefront of this campaign. I wonder what he has to say about this now? In addition the Tories were also making noises around the same time that they would leave it up to local councils to decide the level of house building if any that took place in there area. Even more perverse the UK Government Funding for Lending programme is aimed at keeping house prices high by diverting funding to the housing market (listen to what the experts say in the last edition of Moneybox in 2012 broadcast on radio 4 about this if you don't believe me). The Government talks of the need to build more houses whilst at the same time propping up house prices. The reason they won't let them fall and let the public see the true level of demand and supply is because the UK Government is petrified of the potential toxic negative equity that is around. Thus the UK Government is being very dishonest indeed over trying to tell the public a huge house building programme must take place and the consequent need to concrete over huge areas of green belt. A real good example of a complete disregard for the environment.[/p][/quote]Sense of perspective needed here I think. While it may seem at times as if the whole of this country is being turned into a 'concrete jungle', the actual percentage of land currently 'under concrete' in England is slightly less than 2.3%. So very nearly 98% of land remains 'green' space. (Source: BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-18623096 ) I'm inclined to think some of the concerns raised here may be a little overstated...... Arjay
  • Score: 0

1:25am Sat 2 Mar 13

portia6 says...

Dr Strangelove wrote:
manana wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
I agree with you..if these houses were going to key workers, people who actually pay into the system, then fine, but they are bound to go to people who dont work and breed like rabbits and hold their hands out because ;ITS MY RIGHT;.......
Youve been reading too much dailymail myth and hate spreading, you should go to the doctors and both get your blood pressure tested.
Yep its The Daily Mail again, try the
i paper its very informative and is
not biased. But its not a fair world is
it? Too many working class snobs
ready to walk all over their fellow man!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Strangelove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]manana[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]I agree with you..if these houses were going to key workers, people who actually pay into the system, then fine, but they are bound to go to people who dont work and breed like rabbits and hold their hands out because ;ITS MY RIGHT;.......[/p][/quote]Youve been reading too much dailymail myth and hate spreading, you should go to the doctors and both get your blood pressure tested.[/p][/quote]Yep its The Daily Mail again, try the i paper its very informative and is not biased. But its not a fair world is it? Too many working class snobs ready to walk all over their fellow man! portia6
  • Score: 0

1:29am Sat 2 Mar 13

portia6 says...

Wesoblind wrote:
how many will be given to single mums under 21 who have never worked a day in their life and have kids all with different dads that didnt hang around?

Call me sinical but wait and see.
Cynical, but could be lack of love from
their parents.
[quote][p][bold]Wesoblind[/bold] wrote: how many will be given to single mums under 21 who have never worked a day in their life and have kids all with different dads that didnt hang around? Call me sinical but wait and see.[/p][/quote]Cynical, but could be lack of love from their parents. portia6
  • Score: 0

1:42am Sat 2 Mar 13

portia6 says...

Azphreal wrote:
I notice many anti benefit posts here and i am sure the Daily Mail is proud of you. Do you have ANY idea how many people who are not on benefits are on the housing list? Do you think only people on benefits are allowed to apply? Have you any idea how many working families need housing because they are in properties that are too small (many rented as they can not afford to buy).
We need decent homes for our young
family's future, most of them are just
trying to raise children in a loving
home I'm sure.
[quote][p][bold]Azphreal[/bold] wrote: I notice many anti benefit posts here and i am sure the Daily Mail is proud of you. Do you have ANY idea how many people who are not on benefits are on the housing list? Do you think only people on benefits are allowed to apply? Have you any idea how many working families need housing because they are in properties that are too small (many rented as they can not afford to buy).[/p][/quote]We need decent homes for our young family's future, most of them are just trying to raise children in a loving home I'm sure. portia6
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Sat 2 Mar 13

portia6 says...

l'anglais wrote:
So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list.
50 homes built at 130K each.

1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list?
2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market.

This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.
We live in an expensive area so its
cheaper to live up north, Derby is nice
or maybe Gourock?
[quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list. 50 homes built at 130K each. 1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list? 2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market. This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.[/p][/quote]We live in an expensive area so its cheaper to live up north, Derby is nice or maybe Gourock? portia6
  • Score: 0

7:37pm Sat 2 Mar 13

portia6 says...

BmthNewshound wrote:
This is great news and long overdue. But how long before tenants can exercise their right to buy at a ridiculously reduced price and the development ends up a predominantly privately owned estate. Selling off council houses to tenants was one of the most stupid decisions Thatcher made and helped to create the shortage in affordable housing we are now facing.
.
I’m also wondering why these houses need to be significantly bigger than those built by private developers. Cllr Lawton opening admits that a private developer would have built double the number of houses on the site. With 2,250 people on the housing waiting list this seems like a missed opportunity to give more people a home. There also seems to be a disparity between the councils policy towards how many parking spaces they will create per property compared to the many private developments built in the town over the past few years where there is not even one parking space per property. If a family can afford to run two cars how can the council justify providing them with a tax payer subsidised council house ?
The biggest and nicest cars often seen
on council estates!
[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: This is great news and long overdue. But how long before tenants can exercise their right to buy at a ridiculously reduced price and the development ends up a predominantly privately owned estate. Selling off council houses to tenants was one of the most stupid decisions Thatcher made and helped to create the shortage in affordable housing we are now facing. . I’m also wondering why these houses need to be significantly bigger than those built by private developers. Cllr Lawton opening admits that a private developer would have built double the number of houses on the site. With 2,250 people on the housing waiting list this seems like a missed opportunity to give more people a home. There also seems to be a disparity between the councils policy towards how many parking spaces they will create per property compared to the many private developments built in the town over the past few years where there is not even one parking space per property. If a family can afford to run two cars how can the council justify providing them with a tax payer subsidised council house ?[/p][/quote]The biggest and nicest cars often seen on council estates! portia6
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Sat 2 Mar 13

portia6 says...

Azphreal wrote:
I notice many anti benefit posts here and i am sure the Daily Mail is proud of you. Do you have ANY idea how many people who are not on benefits are on the housing list? Do you think only people on benefits are allowed to apply? Have you any idea how many working families need housing because they are in properties that are too small (many rented as they can not afford to buy).
Council housing is for families and
children need homes, otherwise we
may as well go back to the Victorian
slums!
[quote][p][bold]Azphreal[/bold] wrote: I notice many anti benefit posts here and i am sure the Daily Mail is proud of you. Do you have ANY idea how many people who are not on benefits are on the housing list? Do you think only people on benefits are allowed to apply? Have you any idea how many working families need housing because they are in properties that are too small (many rented as they can not afford to buy).[/p][/quote]Council housing is for families and children need homes, otherwise we may as well go back to the Victorian slums! portia6
  • Score: 0

7:55pm Sat 2 Mar 13

portia6 says...

Dr Strangelove wrote:
AdelaidePete wrote:
Oh come on Strangelove, As a U.K. born (Kinson bred) who worked for years as a teacher in the U.K. and now lives in Oz, like many others, what makes you think we'd want to come back to live? ...Though I will be over to visit the folks in a few weeks, and, well maybe we are oversexed, it's all that sunshine and warmth. I can understand why you are jealous.
It was a ridiculous comment by me to underline how ridiculous that ladies post was and some of the others. It dosent take much for racisium and classism to get a grip, just look at UKIP xenophobic tripe from the last century yet they had a big vote in eastleigh yesterday.
Lets be realistic the class system is
so entrenched in this country that
soap boxes aren't big enough!
For example take the school system,
Hugh from Broadstone gets to go to
the best school and has a free bus.
Poor Joe Bloggs from Poole will have to
walk to school or cycle in all weathers!
No posh blazers for him! He can go to blazes!!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Strangelove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AdelaidePete[/bold] wrote: Oh come on Strangelove, As a U.K. born (Kinson bred) who worked for years as a teacher in the U.K. and now lives in Oz, like many others, what makes you think we'd want to come back to live? ...Though I will be over to visit the folks in a few weeks, and, well maybe we are oversexed, it's all that sunshine and warmth. I can understand why you are jealous.[/p][/quote]It was a ridiculous comment by me to underline how ridiculous that ladies post was and some of the others. It dosent take much for racisium and classism to get a grip, just look at UKIP xenophobic tripe from the last century yet they had a big vote in eastleigh yesterday.[/p][/quote]Lets be realistic the class system is so entrenched in this country that soap boxes aren't big enough! For example take the school system, Hugh from Broadstone gets to go to the best school and has a free bus. Poor Joe Bloggs from Poole will have to walk to school or cycle in all weathers! No posh blazers for him! He can go to blazes!! portia6
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Sat 2 Mar 13

portia6 says...

AdelaidePete wrote:
Oh come on Strangelove, As a U.K. born (Kinson bred) who worked for years as a teacher in the U.K. and now lives in Oz, like many others, what makes you think we'd want to come back to live? ...Though I will be over to visit the folks in a few weeks, and, well maybe we are oversexed, it's all that sunshine and warmth. I can understand why you are jealous.
Gotta hand it to the Aussies they gave
us Carl and Sue in Neighbours have
you noticed the sexual chemistry
between them? To die for, lush!
Watch this space! Sea sand and sun
roll on summer if we get one!
[quote][p][bold]AdelaidePete[/bold] wrote: Oh come on Strangelove, As a U.K. born (Kinson bred) who worked for years as a teacher in the U.K. and now lives in Oz, like many others, what makes you think we'd want to come back to live? ...Though I will be over to visit the folks in a few weeks, and, well maybe we are oversexed, it's all that sunshine and warmth. I can understand why you are jealous.[/p][/quote]Gotta hand it to the Aussies they gave us Carl and Sue in Neighbours have you noticed the sexual chemistry between them? To die for, lush! Watch this space! Sea sand and sun roll on summer if we get one! portia6
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Sat 2 Mar 13

mickeywoo says...

zacsprat wrote:
Lets hope the infrastructure can cope,as we struggle with the traffic on the dual carraige way.
Also lets hope the schools can cope with the influx of students!
I live very close to this area,one of the roads off of Holloway avenue,i bought a house here about 5 years ago,been to the meetings about the building plans,the council don't give a flying toss about problems this will cause!they don't live around here,our road is already like silver stone,so the last thing we need is a new development full of immigrants and benefit scroungers,sorry to genuine people, but you wont be coming first,this is the only bit of green left,what about flooding,traffic,and already to much social housing around here,council tax reduction?because the private owned house prices will drop like stone!WE DONT WANT IT HERE!
[quote][p][bold]zacsprat[/bold] wrote: Lets hope the infrastructure can cope,as we struggle with the traffic on the dual carraige way. Also lets hope the schools can cope with the influx of students![/p][/quote]I live very close to this area,one of the roads off of Holloway avenue,i bought a house here about 5 years ago,been to the meetings about the building plans,the council don't give a flying toss about problems this will cause!they don't live around here,our road is already like silver stone,so the last thing we need is a new development full of immigrants and benefit scroungers,sorry to genuine people, but you wont be coming first,this is the only bit of green left,what about flooding,traffic,and already to much social housing around here,council tax reduction?because the private owned house prices will drop like stone!WE DONT WANT IT HERE! mickeywoo
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Sat 2 Mar 13

BournemouthMum says...

mickeywoo wrote:
zacsprat wrote:
Lets hope the infrastructure can cope,as we struggle with the traffic on the dual carraige way.
Also lets hope the schools can cope with the influx of students!
I live very close to this area,one of the roads off of Holloway avenue,i bought a house here about 5 years ago,been to the meetings about the building plans,the council don't give a flying toss about problems this will cause!they don't live around here,our road is already like silver stone,so the last thing we need is a new development full of immigrants and benefit scroungers,sorry to genuine people, but you wont be coming first,this is the only bit of green left,what about flooding,traffic,and already to much social housing around here,council tax reduction?because the private owned house prices will drop like stone!WE DONT WANT IT HERE!
I don't blame you.
[quote][p][bold]mickeywoo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]zacsprat[/bold] wrote: Lets hope the infrastructure can cope,as we struggle with the traffic on the dual carraige way. Also lets hope the schools can cope with the influx of students![/p][/quote]I live very close to this area,one of the roads off of Holloway avenue,i bought a house here about 5 years ago,been to the meetings about the building plans,the council don't give a flying toss about problems this will cause!they don't live around here,our road is already like silver stone,so the last thing we need is a new development full of immigrants and benefit scroungers,sorry to genuine people, but you wont be coming first,this is the only bit of green left,what about flooding,traffic,and already to much social housing around here,council tax reduction?because the private owned house prices will drop like stone!WE DONT WANT IT HERE![/p][/quote]I don't blame you. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Sat 2 Mar 13

mickeywoo says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.
They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time.

Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub!
MIKEY what planet do you live on?why do you think there are 4-5 million immigrants living in this country?housing crisis? trillion pounds in debt?stop the influx,chuck the others out,sorted no more housing worries,and debt massively reduced,due to no more spongers coming here for a free ride,that we the tax payers pay for,oh and while im here,get us out of the fraud EU! its people like you that has caused this country to be flushed down the toilet!!
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.[/p][/quote]They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub![/p][/quote]MIKEY what planet do you live on?why do you think there are 4-5 million immigrants living in this country?housing crisis? trillion pounds in debt?stop the influx,chuck the others out,sorted no more housing worries,and debt massively reduced,due to no more spongers coming here for a free ride,that we the tax payers pay for,oh and while im here,get us out of the fraud EU! its people like you that has caused this country to be flushed down the toilet!! mickeywoo
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Sat 2 Mar 13

mickeywoo says...

b26b wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
Yes, its those on the list waiting for social housing.


Win win as far as I can see, 50 new homes for those that need it (they will be means tested).Jobs for various trades, spaces for apprentices generated. If the council keep their word and use local trades that is.

More of the same please.
sorry,but i applied for for a council house,i got to the office,explained mine and my partners position,pregnant living with parents, no money etc,they told us to jog on and we wouldn't even be considered, because we both work!so we had to do what ever it took to buy our house,now they want to de valve the area with a load of scummy mummy's,and benefit scoungers,we couldnt afford more kids ,so we didnt have any more,cheers!
[quote][p][bold]b26b[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]Yes, its those on the list waiting for social housing. Win win as far as I can see, 50 new homes for those that need it (they will be means tested).Jobs for various trades, spaces for apprentices generated. If the council keep their word and use local trades that is. More of the same please.[/p][/quote]sorry,but i applied for for a council house,i got to the office,explained mine and my partners position,pregnant living with parents, no money etc,they told us to jog on and we wouldn't even be considered, because we both work!so we had to do what ever it took to buy our house,now they want to de valve the area with a load of scummy mummy's,and benefit scoungers,we couldnt afford more kids ,so we didnt have any more,cheers! mickeywoo
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Sat 2 Mar 13

mickeywoo says...

Rational_Being wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
High Treason wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.
They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub!
Here here.

Many social security benefits (state pension, JSA etc) are contributory benefits and to qualify you must have contributed a certain number of NI payments which you give as part of your wages. If you have no right to work in the UK it is impossible to recieve the vast majority of benefits, whatever hearsay quotes.

Then of course there's the habitual residents test one must pass before being able to claim benefits such as housing support, Council Tax Benefit and the like.

Come on guys, this is basic stuff!! How can we facilitate debate if there is such a low level of understanding on how the welfare system works?!
Basic stuff really! why do they come here then? people trafficking to the uk! why would any one do that ??wake up!
[quote][p][bold]Rational_Being[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.[/p][/quote]They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub![/p][/quote]Here here. Many social security benefits (state pension, JSA etc) are contributory benefits and to qualify you must have contributed a certain number of NI payments which you give as part of your wages. If you have no right to work in the UK it is impossible to recieve the vast majority of benefits, whatever hearsay quotes. Then of course there's the habitual residents test one must pass before being able to claim benefits such as housing support, Council Tax Benefit and the like. Come on guys, this is basic stuff!! How can we facilitate debate if there is such a low level of understanding on how the welfare system works?![/p][/quote]Basic stuff really! why do they come here then? people trafficking to the uk! why would any one do that ??wake up! mickeywoo
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Sat 2 Mar 13

mickeywoo says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
West Howe Sean wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
So what is your definition of a hard working tax payer?
Someone who works for a living and pays tax?
bournemouthmum you are so right,but any one who pays tax has no chance of having one of these houses!
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]West Howe Sean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]So what is your definition of a hard working tax payer?[/p][/quote]Someone who works for a living and pays tax?[/p][/quote]bournemouthmum you are so right,but any one who pays tax has no chance of having one of these houses! mickeywoo
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Sat 2 Mar 13

portia6 says...

Refugees fleeing from terrorism seems
like one reason or maybe they come
here for the weather?
Refugees fleeing from terrorism seems like one reason or maybe they come here for the weather? portia6
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Sat 2 Mar 13

portia6 says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
BmthNewshound wrote:
This is great news and long overdue. But how long before tenants can exercise their right to buy at a ridiculously reduced price and the development ends up a predominantly privately owned estate. Selling off council houses to tenants was one of the most stupid decisions Thatcher made and helped to create the shortage in affordable housing we are now facing.
.
I’m also wondering why these houses need to be significantly bigger than those built by private developers. Cllr Lawton opening admits that a private developer would have built double the number of houses on the site. With 2,250 people on the housing waiting list this seems like a missed opportunity to give more people a home. There also seems to be a disparity between the councils policy towards how many parking spaces they will create per property compared to the many private developments built in the town over the past few years where there is not even one parking space per property. If a family can afford to run two cars how can the council justify providing them with a tax payer subsidised council house ?
When Margaret Thatcher introduced the Right to Buy scheme there is no way she could have foreseen what was going to happen to this country under Labour - ie uncontrolled immigration, uncontrolled benefit handouts etc. etc. She wanted us to be a nation of homeowners and did it with the very best of intentions.
Divide and rule!
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: This is great news and long overdue. But how long before tenants can exercise their right to buy at a ridiculously reduced price and the development ends up a predominantly privately owned estate. Selling off council houses to tenants was one of the most stupid decisions Thatcher made and helped to create the shortage in affordable housing we are now facing. . I’m also wondering why these houses need to be significantly bigger than those built by private developers. Cllr Lawton opening admits that a private developer would have built double the number of houses on the site. With 2,250 people on the housing waiting list this seems like a missed opportunity to give more people a home. There also seems to be a disparity between the councils policy towards how many parking spaces they will create per property compared to the many private developments built in the town over the past few years where there is not even one parking space per property. If a family can afford to run two cars how can the council justify providing them with a tax payer subsidised council house ?[/p][/quote]When Margaret Thatcher introduced the Right to Buy scheme there is no way she could have foreseen what was going to happen to this country under Labour - ie uncontrolled immigration, uncontrolled benefit handouts etc. etc. She wanted us to be a nation of homeowners and did it with the very best of intentions.[/p][/quote]Divide and rule! portia6
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Sun 3 Mar 13

golfer33 says...

retry69 wrote:
Redgolfer wrote: Just a thought, since when has Duck Lane been in Kinson. as far as I understood it was West Howe and if the Council are looking for more land watch out Queen's Park Golf Course, oh no it was given to the town as a public open space, as if that mattered to this Council.
Nice break from the usual banter above.Always was a debatable point Kinson/West Howe.Duck Lane has great memories for me spent a lot of my youth in and around there with the "White Hut", met my wife of 36 years in that field( no rude comments please) in fact "our tree" stands along Holloway Avenue end, Duck Lane always was a great meeting place before and after school/youth clubs and i for one will feel a little sadness to see it covered up this way,gotta go im filling up
yes a great place for fun
i went to school there and and the youth club in the the 60s , played football there loads of times . we had our first smoke there our first f... . lucky i live abroad now . so do with it what you want , but it holds good memories. there is also loads of place on turbary common , now that was a good place during the 70s.... but i dont want to bore you with the details
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: Just a thought, since when has Duck Lane been in Kinson. as far as I understood it was West Howe and if the Council are looking for more land watch out Queen's Park Golf Course, oh no it was given to the town as a public open space, as if that mattered to this Council.[/p][/quote]Nice break from the usual banter above.Always was a debatable point Kinson/West Howe.Duck Lane has great memories for me spent a lot of my youth in and around there with the "White Hut", met my wife of 36 years in that field( no rude comments please) in fact "our tree" stands along Holloway Avenue end, Duck Lane always was a great meeting place before and after school/youth clubs and i for one will feel a little sadness to see it covered up this way,gotta go im filling up[/p][/quote]yes a great place for fun i went to school there and and the youth club in the the 60s , played football there loads of times . we had our first smoke there our first f... . lucky i live abroad now . so do with it what you want , but it holds good memories. there is also loads of place on turbary common , now that was a good place during the 70s.... but i dont want to bore you with the details golfer33
  • Score: 0

7:47pm Sun 3 Mar 13

markelkins says...

Arjay wrote:
markelkins wrote:
The fact that Cllr Robert Lawton, cabinet member for housing makes a great deal over the economic benefits of this plan illustrates that all this is primarily about is implementing the UK Government's recent plan to use house building to kick start growth in the economy.

There are however some serious environmental issues in this reckless plan. First and foremost the UK is nowhere near self-sufficient in feeding itself and increasingly has to import more and more food as the population is allowed to rise largely unchecked with more and more green space concreted over. More imports mean more transport c02 and other emissions. Also because more food imports are needed means loss of total control of knowing exactly what it is those food imports contain. For example it could be beef but it could be horse, donkey etc. In addition because of the lack of green space UK farmers are forced into being more and more productive. A major issue caused by this is the plan to kill off loads of badgers in the belief this will basically up the production of British beef.

Secondly more development means less green space for wildlife and also for the human population. Research shows that people who live near green space such as a park have better health and live longer.

Thirdly more housing means more C02 and other emissions needed to light and heat it. More water is needed. Fine if you know future water supply is ok but not fine with the unknown situation we now have that can at one time mean a drought and another time flooding. As we all know concreting over too much land is not exactly a safe move with regard to flood risk.

Fourthly with global warming although we are dealing with an unknown why build over land that is green and fertile in comparison to many other parts of the world? This would appear to be complete and utter collective madness to favour concrete to food production in the UK.

Fifthly why should we accept a greater density of housing in the Bournemouth area just because Central Government says we should.
Not long before the Coalition Government came into being the Tories were running a campaign to stop Gardens being built on. Christopher Chope MP for Christchurch was at the forefront of this campaign. I wonder what he has to say about this now? In addition the Tories were also making noises around the same time that they would leave it up to local councils to decide the level of house building if any that took place in there area.

Even more perverse the UK Government Funding for Lending programme is aimed at keeping house prices high by diverting funding to the housing market (listen to what the experts say in the last edition of Moneybox in 2012 broadcast on radio 4 about this if you don't believe me). The Government talks of the need to build more houses whilst at the same time propping up house prices. The reason they won't let them fall and let the public see the true level of demand and supply is because the UK Government is petrified of the potential toxic negative equity that is around. Thus the UK Government is being very dishonest indeed over trying to tell the public a huge house building programme must take place and the consequent need to concrete over huge areas of green belt. A real good example of a complete disregard for the environment.
Sense of perspective needed here I think.
While it may seem at times as if the whole of this country is being turned into a 'concrete jungle', the actual percentage of land currently 'under concrete' in England is slightly less than 2.3%. So very nearly 98% of land remains 'green' space. (Source: BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-18623096 )

I'm inclined to think some of the concerns raised here may be a little overstated......
You maybe inclined to think some of my concerns are overstated but if you take the time to look into what I am saying you will find out my concerns are far from overstated.

I also think you've seriously misunderstood the amount of green space that is required to feed the density of population found in the UK. As I have stated the UK is nowhere near self-sufficient in being able to feed itself.
[quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]markelkins[/bold] wrote: The fact that Cllr Robert Lawton, cabinet member for housing makes a great deal over the economic benefits of this plan illustrates that all this is primarily about is implementing the UK Government's recent plan to use house building to kick start growth in the economy. There are however some serious environmental issues in this reckless plan. First and foremost the UK is nowhere near self-sufficient in feeding itself and increasingly has to import more and more food as the population is allowed to rise largely unchecked with more and more green space concreted over. More imports mean more transport c02 and other emissions. Also because more food imports are needed means loss of total control of knowing exactly what it is those food imports contain. For example it could be beef but it could be horse, donkey etc. In addition because of the lack of green space UK farmers are forced into being more and more productive. A major issue caused by this is the plan to kill off loads of badgers in the belief this will basically up the production of British beef. Secondly more development means less green space for wildlife and also for the human population. Research shows that people who live near green space such as a park have better health and live longer. Thirdly more housing means more C02 and other emissions needed to light and heat it. More water is needed. Fine if you know future water supply is ok but not fine with the unknown situation we now have that can at one time mean a drought and another time flooding. As we all know concreting over too much land is not exactly a safe move with regard to flood risk. Fourthly with global warming although we are dealing with an unknown why build over land that is green and fertile in comparison to many other parts of the world? This would appear to be complete and utter collective madness to favour concrete to food production in the UK. Fifthly why should we accept a greater density of housing in the Bournemouth area just because Central Government says we should. Not long before the Coalition Government came into being the Tories were running a campaign to stop Gardens being built on. Christopher Chope MP for Christchurch was at the forefront of this campaign. I wonder what he has to say about this now? In addition the Tories were also making noises around the same time that they would leave it up to local councils to decide the level of house building if any that took place in there area. Even more perverse the UK Government Funding for Lending programme is aimed at keeping house prices high by diverting funding to the housing market (listen to what the experts say in the last edition of Moneybox in 2012 broadcast on radio 4 about this if you don't believe me). The Government talks of the need to build more houses whilst at the same time propping up house prices. The reason they won't let them fall and let the public see the true level of demand and supply is because the UK Government is petrified of the potential toxic negative equity that is around. Thus the UK Government is being very dishonest indeed over trying to tell the public a huge house building programme must take place and the consequent need to concrete over huge areas of green belt. A real good example of a complete disregard for the environment.[/p][/quote]Sense of perspective needed here I think. While it may seem at times as if the whole of this country is being turned into a 'concrete jungle', the actual percentage of land currently 'under concrete' in England is slightly less than 2.3%. So very nearly 98% of land remains 'green' space. (Source: BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-18623096 ) I'm inclined to think some of the concerns raised here may be a little overstated......[/p][/quote]You maybe inclined to think some of my concerns are overstated but if you take the time to look into what I am saying you will find out my concerns are far from overstated. I also think you've seriously misunderstood the amount of green space that is required to feed the density of population found in the UK. As I have stated the UK is nowhere near self-sufficient in being able to feed itself. markelkins
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Mon 4 Mar 13

justsayithowitis says...

mickeywoo wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
West Howe Sean wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
So what is your definition of a hard working tax payer?
Someone who works for a living and pays tax?
bournemouthmum you are so right,but any one who pays tax has no chance of having one of these houses!
Very true. My daughter's landlord wants her out. She went to Poole council who told her to go and find somewhere to live. She works, her husband works and they have 2 young children. Only people on benefits get put on the council list. Also if only people who have paid into the system get anything out of it how do all the teen mums get by. Some pregnant while at school some as soon as they leave. Never worked or paid tax. Benefits are paid to many many people who have never paid anything in
[quote][p][bold]mickeywoo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]West Howe Sean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]So what is your definition of a hard working tax payer?[/p][/quote]Someone who works for a living and pays tax?[/p][/quote]bournemouthmum you are so right,but any one who pays tax has no chance of having one of these houses![/p][/quote]Very true. My daughter's landlord wants her out. She went to Poole council who told her to go and find somewhere to live. She works, her husband works and they have 2 young children. Only people on benefits get put on the council list. Also if only people who have paid into the system get anything out of it how do all the teen mums get by. Some pregnant while at school some as soon as they leave. Never worked or paid tax. Benefits are paid to many many people who have never paid anything in justsayithowitis
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Mon 4 Mar 13

parley says...

BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
Apparently someone who has time to message an opinion on every single topic on this site is a "hardworking taxpayer". Some people just don't have a clue what the real world is like out there, for some it's a real struggle.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]Apparently someone who has time to message an opinion on every single topic on this site is a "hardworking taxpayer". Some people just don't have a clue what the real world is like out there, for some it's a real struggle. parley
  • Score: 0

11:16am Wed 6 Mar 13

portia6 says...

mw2010 wrote:
Proper homes at last maybe someone should take note as blandford road hamworthy turning into flat central
I agree flats are taking over but its
because there are more people living
alone due to divorce and people who
are older and widowed.
[quote][p][bold]mw2010[/bold] wrote: Proper homes at last maybe someone should take note as blandford road hamworthy turning into flat central[/p][/quote]I agree flats are taking over but its because there are more people living alone due to divorce and people who are older and widowed. portia6
  • Score: 0

11:30am Wed 6 Mar 13

portia6 says...

parley wrote:
BournemouthMum wrote:
Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.
Apparently someone who has time to message an opinion on every single topic on this site is a "hardworking taxpayer". Some people just don't have a clue what the real world is like out there, for some it's a real struggle.
Its too easy to scapegoat people and
put labels on them! We all start off in
life with potential to have a reasonable
existence! Schools parents families,
most support their children in their
aspirations. Unfortunately as Jean
Paul Sartre said, hell is other people,
in others words you can meet a toxic
(boyfriend) or even teacher/friend!
[quote][p][bold]parley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: Who will benefit from these new homes I wonder - hardworking taxpayers, or benefit scroungers? I think we all know the answer.[/p][/quote]Apparently someone who has time to message an opinion on every single topic on this site is a "hardworking taxpayer". Some people just don't have a clue what the real world is like out there, for some it's a real struggle.[/p][/quote]Its too easy to scapegoat people and put labels on them! We all start off in life with potential to have a reasonable existence! Schools parents families, most support their children in their aspirations. Unfortunately as Jean Paul Sartre said, hell is other people, in others words you can meet a toxic (boyfriend) or even teacher/friend! portia6
  • Score: 0

11:41am Wed 6 Mar 13

portia6 says...

mickeywoo wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.
They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time.

Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub!
MIKEY what planet do you live on?why do you think there are 4-5 million immigrants living in this country?housing crisis? trillion pounds in debt?stop the influx,chuck the others out,sorted no more housing worries,and debt massively reduced,due to no more spongers coming here for a free ride,that we the tax payers pay for,oh and while im here,get us out of the fraud EU! its people like you that has caused this country to be flushed down the toilet!!
There are some professionals who come
here to work for the NHS and also in
law etc, sure they must be hard-working
as they also learn our language, that
is the educated immigrants of course
[quote][p][bold]mickeywoo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Well Rational_Being they will come here because we are a soft touch whereas the French send them back if they haven't a job.[/p][/quote]They can't just come here and claim benefits. Benefits are only given once people have been working and paying taxes for a certain length of time. Check your facts before you start repeating things you heard down the pub![/p][/quote]MIKEY what planet do you live on?why do you think there are 4-5 million immigrants living in this country?housing crisis? trillion pounds in debt?stop the influx,chuck the others out,sorted no more housing worries,and debt massively reduced,due to no more spongers coming here for a free ride,that we the tax payers pay for,oh and while im here,get us out of the fraud EU! its people like you that has caused this country to be flushed down the toilet!![/p][/quote]There are some professionals who come here to work for the NHS and also in law etc, sure they must be hard-working as they also learn our language, that is the educated immigrants of course portia6
  • Score: 0

11:50am Wed 6 Mar 13

justsayithowitis says...

portia6 wrote:
Refugees fleeing from terrorism seems
like one reason or maybe they come
here for the weather?
How many safe countries do these refugees cross to get to our benefit giving country
[quote][p][bold]portia6[/bold] wrote: Refugees fleeing from terrorism seems like one reason or maybe they come here for the weather?[/p][/quote]How many safe countries do these refugees cross to get to our benefit giving country justsayithowitis
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Wed 6 Mar 13

portia6 says...

Good point there must be other
countries that have more room than us,
we are a soft touch that's for sure!
Good point there must be other countries that have more room than us, we are a soft touch that's for sure! portia6
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Wed 6 Mar 13

portia6 says...

I've heard Southern Ireland is a nice
place to live, County Clare!
I've heard Southern Ireland is a nice place to live, County Clare! portia6
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Wed 6 Mar 13

Dorset Logic says...

Will anyone in need of a council house want one in Kinson though?
Will anyone in need of a council house want one in Kinson though? Dorset Logic
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Wed 6 Mar 13

ragj195 says...

l'anglais wrote:
High Treason wrote:
l'anglais wrote:
So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list.
50 homes built at 130K each.

1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list?
2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market.

This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.
"This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.

Supply and demand. At least OAP's forsake many a holiday, never got goods on tick and lived within their means. Now jealous people like you begrudge them their meagre pension and even the state rips them off when it comes to care home fees. Council tenants get a cheap home and free care home fees.
You will find many on the housing waiting list don't even work, many simply have more children as a profession.
Ah yes, dear old supply and demand, the capitalists get out clause.

Well the demand for housing happens to be there, what ever happened to the supply?
The OAP's accumulated their pensions in investment portfolios overseas, rather than in dear old blighty.
Result being, no industry, just the servicing of others tat.

If you are just living on a state pension Mr OAP, you've only got yourself to blame. It's a shame you have to cash in the UNEARNED equity to pay for your care in old age, in reality it's your grandkids paying higher housing prices to keep you alive.
Here you go again. You really have no idea what equity is do you? Tell me exactly what you think happens when someone decides to "cash in"?
[quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list. 50 homes built at 130K each. 1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list? 2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market. This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.[/p][/quote]"This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place. Supply and demand. At least OAP's forsake many a holiday, never got goods on tick and lived within their means. Now jealous people like you begrudge them their meagre pension and even the state rips them off when it comes to care home fees. Council tenants get a cheap home and free care home fees. You will find many on the housing waiting list don't even work, many simply have more children as a profession.[/p][/quote]Ah yes, dear old supply and demand, the capitalists get out clause. Well the demand for housing happens to be there, what ever happened to the supply? The OAP's accumulated their pensions in investment portfolios overseas, rather than in dear old blighty. Result being, no industry, just the servicing of others tat. If you are just living on a state pension Mr OAP, you've only got yourself to blame. It's a shame you have to cash in the UNEARNED equity to pay for your care in old age, in reality it's your grandkids paying higher housing prices to keep you alive.[/p][/quote]Here you go again. You really have no idea what equity is do you? Tell me exactly what you think happens when someone decides to "cash in"? ragj195
  • Score: 0

5:41am Thu 7 Mar 13

AdelaidePete says...

As an ex-resident of Kinson I find it disappointing that folk sneer at the place. The school I went to locally was excellent. I went on to the grammar school which, whilst it has its place, was never as good as Oakmead. We lived in a council house and kept it in as good a condition as any of the private bungalows over the road, the garden was probably better kept. It may not be Canford Cliffs but a look around the country will show it's not that bad a spot.
As an ex-resident of Kinson I find it disappointing that folk sneer at the place. The school I went to locally was excellent. I went on to the grammar school which, whilst it has its place, was never as good as Oakmead. We lived in a council house and kept it in as good a condition as any of the private bungalows over the road, the garden was probably better kept. It may not be Canford Cliffs but a look around the country will show it's not that bad a spot. AdelaidePete
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Fri 8 Mar 13

markelkins says...

ragj195 wrote:
l'anglais wrote:
High Treason wrote:
l'anglais wrote:
So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list.
50 homes built at 130K each.

1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list?
2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market.

This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.
"This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.

Supply and demand. At least OAP's forsake many a holiday, never got goods on tick and lived within their means. Now jealous people like you begrudge them their meagre pension and even the state rips them off when it comes to care home fees. Council tenants get a cheap home and free care home fees.
You will find many on the housing waiting list don't even work, many simply have more children as a profession.
Ah yes, dear old supply and demand, the capitalists get out clause.

Well the demand for housing happens to be there, what ever happened to the supply?
The OAP's accumulated their pensions in investment portfolios overseas, rather than in dear old blighty.
Result being, no industry, just the servicing of others tat.

If you are just living on a state pension Mr OAP, you've only got yourself to blame. It's a shame you have to cash in the UNEARNED equity to pay for your care in old age, in reality it's your grandkids paying higher housing prices to keep you alive.
Here you go again. You really have no idea what equity is do you? Tell me exactly what you think happens when someone decides to "cash in"?
I totally agree that house prices are far too high and its an absolute outrage that at a time when the UK is facing serious economic problems that prices do not reflect this.

So how did this happen? The answer is that far too much money was allowed to chase housing due to the freeing up of regulations on the finance sector by a succession of Governments. This led to a situation where the finance sector knowing that the more it lent in mortgages the higher the return. There was a general agreement amongst the Political Parties that clever financial mechanisms meant that the traditional stop/go economic cycle would never occur again. Unfortunately they were wrong and this is why one almighty economic stop cycle built up sometime around 2007/2008.

In the past when recessions have occurred house prices has crashed. However this time the Politicians have intervened to use mechanisms to stop this happening. Thus a huge proportion of the younger generations have been unable to get on the housing ladder. This is a difficult one to deal with because according to the ONS (Office of National Statistics) in August 2012 the net value of the UK was about £7 trillion of which £4 trillion is based on property prices. Now if house prices crash the net value of the UK is clearly going to fall significantly. Such a fall is highly likely to have an effect on the value of sterling.

I do not like what the UK Government is up regarding house building plans and I give an argument in another post above why its house building plans are not a good idea from an environmental standpoint. However from a purely economic standpoint I would suggest that what the UK Government is up to is to build more houses and let prices fall a bit hoping that the total worth of UK property will stay about the same at £4 Trillion.

On the topic of social housing that is mentioned here quite a bit the selling off of so many Council Houses has now led to a situation where it is far more expensive for the public sector to house people. This is because rents in the private sector are far far higher than the cost of housing someone in Council property because rents of course mirror the value of property in the private sector. The very same property that makes up the £4 Trillion the UK Government will not let fall in value. An unforeseen legacy of selling off so many Council Houses from Thatcher onwards perhaps?
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: So, 2,250 people are on the waiting list. 50 homes built at 130K each. 1. What about the other 2,200 on the waiting list? 2. Could we build 5000 homes to drive property prices down enabling the working under 35's earning 25k-45k access to the market. This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place.[/p][/quote]"This might put a few OAP's noses out of joint, but they never earned the equity on their homes in the first place. Supply and demand. At least OAP's forsake many a holiday, never got goods on tick and lived within their means. Now jealous people like you begrudge them their meagre pension and even the state rips them off when it comes to care home fees. Council tenants get a cheap home and free care home fees. You will find many on the housing waiting list don't even work, many simply have more children as a profession.[/p][/quote]Ah yes, dear old supply and demand, the capitalists get out clause. Well the demand for housing happens to be there, what ever happened to the supply? The OAP's accumulated their pensions in investment portfolios overseas, rather than in dear old blighty. Result being, no industry, just the servicing of others tat. If you are just living on a state pension Mr OAP, you've only got yourself to blame. It's a shame you have to cash in the UNEARNED equity to pay for your care in old age, in reality it's your grandkids paying higher housing prices to keep you alive.[/p][/quote]Here you go again. You really have no idea what equity is do you? Tell me exactly what you think happens when someone decides to "cash in"?[/p][/quote]I totally agree that house prices are far too high and its an absolute outrage that at a time when the UK is facing serious economic problems that prices do not reflect this. So how did this happen? The answer is that far too much money was allowed to chase housing due to the freeing up of regulations on the finance sector by a succession of Governments. This led to a situation where the finance sector knowing that the more it lent in mortgages the higher the return. There was a general agreement amongst the Political Parties that clever financial mechanisms meant that the traditional stop/go economic cycle would never occur again. Unfortunately they were wrong and this is why one almighty economic stop cycle built up sometime around 2007/2008. In the past when recessions have occurred house prices has crashed. However this time the Politicians have intervened to use mechanisms to stop this happening. Thus a huge proportion of the younger generations have been unable to get on the housing ladder. This is a difficult one to deal with because according to the ONS (Office of National Statistics) in August 2012 the net value of the UK was about £7 trillion of which £4 trillion is based on property prices. Now if house prices crash the net value of the UK is clearly going to fall significantly. Such a fall is highly likely to have an effect on the value of sterling. I do not like what the UK Government is up regarding house building plans and I give an argument in another post above why its house building plans are not a good idea from an environmental standpoint. However from a purely economic standpoint I would suggest that what the UK Government is up to is to build more houses and let prices fall a bit hoping that the total worth of UK property will stay about the same at £4 Trillion. On the topic of social housing that is mentioned here quite a bit the selling off of so many Council Houses has now led to a situation where it is far more expensive for the public sector to house people. This is because rents in the private sector are far far higher than the cost of housing someone in Council property because rents of course mirror the value of property in the private sector. The very same property that makes up the £4 Trillion the UK Government will not let fall in value. An unforeseen legacy of selling off so many Council Houses from Thatcher onwards perhaps? markelkins
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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