tell me why ?

cmonstanley · 24-07-2007, 17:48

any councillors or the powers to be tell us why there are still so many empty houses in hyndburn when the council promised to compulsory purchase them

i know of at least one house that has been set on fire ,vandalised ,rubbish dumped for the last eight years

WillowTheWhisp · 24-07-2007, 18:24

I know of a couple too. One not a million miles from here is a bit of an eyesore.

Ianto.W. · 25-07-2007, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

any councillors or the powers to be tell us why there are still so many empty houses in hyndburn when the council promised to compulsory purchase them

i know of at least one house that has been set on fire ,vandalised ,rubbish dumped for the last eight years

It all boils down to priorities and money, if the Council purchase all the 'derelict' house in the borough they would then be obliged to spend money on them too. The simple fact is all the council allocates money in advance of the budget, if any funds are left in the contingency fund it may spend it in areas like this. Time would be better spent 'chasing' the absentee landlords or owners of these properties, give them a short time to do the necessary work, if they fail to do it take the properties for nothing.

WillowTheWhisp · 25-07-2007, 19:32

I think some of the owners have been hanging on hoping for grants or something.

mallard · 25-07-2007, 20:18

The council only spend so much,they have just done the heating in the flats round here,but like you say they have house,s emty that want a revamping and that were the brass should go

Ianto.W. · 25-07-2007, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I think some of the owners have been hanging on hoping for grants or something.

Yes you are 'bob on' there willow, that is their game hence my last post, take them for nothing and they will soon start to put them in order.

g jones · 25-07-2007, 21:17

There are 2,000 empty houses out of 35,000. We have been building houses at a rate of several hundred a year because The Council wanted new build, wanted regeneration, people wanted aspirational homes. Ones built of red brick that come with a glossy lifestyle brochure.

We have not been bulldozing houses at anywhere near that rate over this period. In fact for many years we cleared no houses despite the fact we were building them. Given the census from 1991 to 2001 (In Burnley the population has fallen significantly enhancing the problem there) has shown little or no increase we have ended up with an oversupply.

Around 65% of the housing stock was terraced. Such a high proportion, plus people's desire for nice new red brick ones with gardens, plus people's desire to get out of the inner urban areas and locate on this peripheral new estates has resulted in significant empties in the inner urban areas.

For 20 years to this day (and still) we are not managing our housing stock or taking a firm stance on developers as to their social responsibility for this oversupply.

The Government have given us £millions (not a penny from the Council) to remove this surplus housing stock. However it is not enough. Approximately 800 houses out of the 2000 will be demolished but with the rampant resupply of new houses the problem will carry on and on.

The powers that be (at the Council - the ones we elected) proclaim that because house prices have risen in area (Princes St area), the over supply is cured and demand has risen. But from where has the new demand come from???? And of course property speculation has caused rising prices. Both local (regeneration) and national (economic).

The Council are failing totally to understand the circumstances and therefore can't find the solutions but in the meantime are spending £millions looking for them. Part of the problem is Tories who see new build on the edge of as a philosophically desirable goal.

g jones · 25-07-2007, 21:28

Corrected the type and made it make more sense.

There are 2,000 empty houses out of 35,000. We have been building houses at a rate of several hundred a year because The Council wanted new build, wanted regeneration, people wanted aspirational homes. Ones built of red brick that come with a glossy lifestyle brochure.

At the same time we have not been bulldozing houses at anywhere near that rate over this period. In fact for many years we cleared no houses despite the fact we were building them. Given the census from 1991 to 2001 has shown little or no increase we have ended up with an oversupply. (In Burnley the population has fallen significantly enhancing the problem there)

Around 65% of the housing stock was terraced. Such a high proportion, plus people's desire for nice new red brick ones with gardens, plus people's desire to get out of the inner urban areas and locate on these peripheral new estates has resulted in significant numbers of empties in the inner urban areas that everyone is familiar with.

For the last 20 years, up to this day (and still ongoing), The Council are failing to understand this and failing to manage our housing stock. Neither are we taking a firm stance on developers as to their social responsibility for this oversupply. Quite the opposite, we believe in bending over for them frightened they won't build these new desirable houses here. My personal view is they are not desirable, there is shortage of red brick lifestyle houses so people lower their expectations and builders lower their build quality as a result.

The Government have given us £millions (not a penny from the Council) to remove the surplus housing stock - 2000 terraces. However it is not enough. Only 800 houses out of the 2000 are scheduled to be demolished but with the rampant resupply of new houses the problem will carry on and on.

Worse, the powers that be (at the Council - the ones we elected) proclaim that because house prices have risen in an area (Princes St in the case of Blackburn Rd clearance), the over supply is cured because demand has risen measured by rapidly increasing house prices being a barometer for increasing desirebailty. That's not to say though they are bought by people who personally are going to live in them. But where has the new demand come from???? And of course property speculation has caused rising prices. Both local (regeneration) and national (economic) has influenced house prices in that area. That's not a sustainable solution. People wanting to live there is.

The Council are failing totally to understand the circumstances around housing supply and markets, and therefore can't find proper solutions. In the meantime they are spending £millions looking for answers that aren't good enough. Part of the problem is dogma, Tories who see new build on the edge of as a philosophically desirable goal and who believe the markets will always be the answer. Not if there's not enough people for the houses you have built they won't.

b.joel · 26-07-2007, 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

Corrected the type and made it make more sense.

There are 2,000 empty houses out of 35,000. We have been building houses at a rate of several hundred a year because The Council wanted new build, wanted regeneration, people wanted aspirational homes. Ones built of red brick that come with a glossy lifestyle brochure.

At the same time we have not been bulldozing houses at anywhere near that rate over this period. In fact for many years we cleared no houses despite the fact we were building them. Given the census from 1991 to 2001 has shown little or no increase we have ended up with an oversupply. (In Burnley the population has fallen significantly enhancing the problem there)

Around 65% of the housing stock was terraced. Such a high proportion, plus people's desire for nice new red brick ones with gardens, plus people's desire to get out of the inner urban areas and locate on these peripheral new estates has resulted in significant numbers of empties in the inner urban areas that everyone is familiar with.

For the last 20 years, up to this day (and still ongoing), The Council are failing to understand this and failing to manage our housing stock. Neither are we taking a firm stance on developers as to their social responsibility for this oversupply. Quite the opposite, we believe in bending over for them frightened they won't build these new desirable houses here. My personal view is they are not desirable, there is shortage of red brick lifestyle houses so people lower their expectations and builders lower their build quality as a result.

The Government have given us £millions (not a penny from the Council) to remove the surplus housing stock - 2000 terraces. However it is not enough. Only 800 houses out of the 2000 are scheduled to be demolished but with the rampant resupply of new houses the problem will carry on and on.

Worse, the powers that be (at the Council - the ones we elected) proclaim that because house prices have risen in an area (Princes St in the case of Blackburn Rd clearance), the over supply is cured because demand has risen measured by rapidly increasing house prices being a barometer for increasing desirebailty. That's not to say though they are bought by people who personally are going to live in them. But where has the new demand come from???? And of course property speculation has caused rising prices. Both local (regeneration) and national (economic) has influenced house prices in that area. That's not a sustainable solution. People wanting to live there is.

The Council are failing totally to understand the circumstances around housing supply and markets, and therefore can't find proper solutions. In the meantime they are spending £millions looking for answers that aren't good enough. Part of the problem is dogma, Tories who see new build on the edge of as a philosophically desirable goal and who believe the markets will always be the answer. Not if there's not enough people for the houses you have built they won't.

Why use one word when three hundred will do

WillowTheWhisp · 26-07-2007, 11:31

He's a politician BJ!

Mind you I thought I was supposed to be the waffler round here

harwood red · 26-07-2007, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

He's a politician BJ!

Mind you I thought I was supposed to be the waffler round here

looks like not anymore willow, you will just have to be satisfied with being the bobber in and outer instead

b.joel · 26-07-2007, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

He's a politician BJ!

Mind you I thought I was supposed to be the waffler round here

Thanks Willow that tells me everything, Is it the same G. Jones who is the Labour Leader as in Graham, if it is I quite understand as i've always thought most politicians are complete narcissists, who are not happy unless they can see their own face and hear their own voice, or are complete masochists, just think putting up with the general public on a dailly basis, they must be crazy.

g jones · 26-07-2007, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by b.joel

Thanks Willow that tells me everything, Is it the same G. Jones who is the Labour Leader as in Graham, if it is I quite understand as i've always thought most politicians are complete narcissists, who are not happy unless they can see their own face and hear their own voice, or are complete masochists, just think putting up with the general public on a dailly basis, they must be crazy.

Anyone for a banal soundbyte? Customer at front desk!

steeljack · 26-07-2007, 17:41

its allways surprised me that councils have never been in favour of allowing folks to "Knock-through"/convert two small terraced , 2 up 2 down houses into modern family sized housing without wanting to charge double on the "rates" , at least half of "in-town" housing stock would be preserved, parking hassles solved, and a population nearer to town centers for shopping and business .
just curious

WillowTheWhisp · 26-07-2007, 18:53

St Vincents did it with some houses up Belfield Rd (ex council semis)