HBC makes me ill....seriously!

[garinda]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

Yes, it always amazes me how anyone manages to buy property in Scotland. It seems more like an eBay lottery at times.

Off topic I know, but when I was buying in Scotland I had to have two surveys on properties I lost out on. I do know people who have had over ten, and wasted over five thousand pounds playing this lottery.

The only good thing is you can't be gazupped.

A good job in Scotland is to be a property surveyor.

[park381]

Originally Posted by garinda

Park I'm all for new builds on brown field sites.

Old reservoir = good.

Site where good terraced houses have been demolished = bad.

The last pic was of the Tinker Brook Fold,Roegreave road.
Just watch the "space" on Longsdale street and see what is built there.

[park381]

Another fine example of the Prescott directive, this ones in blackburn

[SPUGGIE J]

Originally Posted by garinda

Glasgow is full of 'high density' housing. A blond or red sandstone appartment in the west end of the city will setyou back well over a quarter of a million pounds. That's if you manage to snag one, with the strange Scottish property law of 'offers over'.

They are still selling like hot Bridie cakes.

1/4 million is cheap at the moment for a Glasgow des res. That strange property law also means average time for all the legal guff etc is 6 weeks guzzumping is extremely rare. Oh a bridie is a meat filled pastie type thing.

[Graham Jones]

Originally Posted by park381

Originally Posted by Graham Jones
Probably! Obviously the circumstances are different in teh south and three storey build is becoming common, even 4 storey with underground garage. High density housing may pass in London, but it will fail in Hyndburn in my view. Modern slums for modern people! People aspire to space, green spaces and a sense of community.
Graham, in the south you say, look no further than Huncoat. The 3/4 storey houses apartment blocks are all ways of complying with Prescotts directive, more houses, living space per acre and cheaper.

I see your point and my intention when I said demolish one slum for a new one I was thinking of not only the density but location which is as important. Of course in London or out of the rundown areas here, modern well built housing of three and four storey can be highly attractive. I saw some built in Bolton by one company and they were stunning new build.

The photo of housing in Huncoat, they are council flats, not houses which are in short supply and of course Huncoat is a desirable place. Currently 68 families are on the waiting list for Within Grove alone and 3,300 people are on the waiting list for Council Houses across Hyndburn. I asked this week.

The ones at Ossy I think they are flats too, though I can't tell. Probably a better example of 3 storey high density build being desirable are some in the middle of Sefton Farm. I get asked about flats, sheltered housing a lot and it presents one of the biggest shortages in the Borough.

I think people who travel through a poor dense area feel oppressed by it, not liberated [or inspired], and that affects their purchasing and accordingly the market price, and probably more significant the long term perceptions about a place.

Slightly digressing on house design; Britcliffe is right in one respect, acres of clone like Council Housing doesn't paint a good picture of Hyndburn but he is wrong in failing to understand that desirable estates like Fern Gore are less a blight than the private sector cramming in X nos on a small site built out of cheapo materials without design or thought and as clone like as council housing. Where Council housing meant 3 proper bedrooms, or even 4, and private means 1 normal, one small and a 3rd the size of cupbaord. And how many modern brick housing, less than 20 year old, suffers from shaling, damp, poor guttering, rotten windows, cracked flags? There are lots of issues to consider so we don't make the mistakes of the past.

At the end of the day the market tells us MOST people like to live near green fields or open space and in a larger house with a larger garden, with a garage, in general. Thats why the houses that tick those boxes sell at the opposite end of the scale to those that don't. Obviously a crude analysis but true none the less.

[park381]

The photo of housing in Huncoat, they are council flats, not houses which are in short supply and of course Huncoat is a desirable place. Currently 68 families are on the waiting list for Within Grove alone and 3,300 people are on the waiting list for Council Houses across Hyndburn. I asked this week.
Graham sorry that one is in a private development, I took the photo direct from the developers web site, but yes they are flats, as are all the others, and all in private developments.
Not far away in Colne there is the same sort of property in the pipeline.

From the Elevate East Lancashire web site I notice the item of density of new build that they propose, and that is 30 to 50 units per hectare, a hectare is 10,000sqm or a patch of land 100mx100m.
Is this the type of property to replace rows of terraced houses, 10 years down the line, they will be knocked down.
The project on longsdale street, the new build following the removal of all the terraced houses is 29 houses for rent. (as per the Elevate web site)
Is this progress.

[Acrylic-bob]

I agree with what you say about identikit housing estates, whether private or council; being surrounded by them, I live with the consequences every day.

What seems to be missed is that as the planning authority surely the council has some say in determining housing density, materials used and standards of workmanship. If they don't, what use are they? What is the point of having a planning committee when developers are allowed to chuck together any old shed and call it a house?

[park381]

Slightly digressing on house design; Britcliffe is right in one respect, acres of clone like Council Housing doesn't paint a good picture of Hyndburn but he is wrong in failing to understand that desirable estates like Fern Gore are less a blight than the private sector cramming in X nos on a small site built out of cheapo materials without design or thought and as clone like as council housing. Where Council housing meant 3 proper bedrooms, or even 4, and private means 1 normal, one small and a 3rd the size of cupbaord. And how many modern brick housing, less than 20 year old, suffers from shaling, damp, poor guttering, rotten windows, cracked flags? There are lots of issues to consider so we don't make the mistakes of the past.

There is such a thing as the Building Regulations, all houses are built to whatever version was in force at the time, the building regs of today are far more strict than they were when Fern Gore was built. Failings in the current council houses are not due to the poor build, but to the lack of maintenance and upgrading required to keep them up to modern standards, as with private build the same applies.

[park381]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

What seems to be missed is that as the planning authority surely the council has some say in determining housing density, materials used and standards of workmanship. If they don't, what use are they? What is the point of having a planning committee when developers are allowed to chuck together any old shed and call it a house?

Sorry a-b but the planners are under directive from the office of the deputy prime minister, they follow the guidelines set out for them

[park381]

sorry Graham have done it this way to keep the reply short
At the end of the day the market tells us MOST people like to live near green fields or open space and in a larger house with a larger garden, with a garage, in general. Thats why the houses that tick those boxes sell at the opposite end of the scale to those that don't. Obviously a crude analysis but true none the less.

Yes I will agree with you here, but that is not the case we are lumbered with the "new build" and the smaller properties. Although I have heard of people selling the large house with the large garden to developers who have built 10 houses on the plot, and made a good profit.

[Graham Jones]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

I agree with what you say about identikit housing estates, whether private or council; being surrounded by them, I live with the consequences every day.

What seems to be missed is that as the planning authority surely the council has some say in determining housing density, materials used and standards of workmanship. If they don't, what use are they? What is the point of having a planning committee when developers are allowed to chuck together any old shed and call it a house?

Sorry Park381 but A-Bs right. The Regional Spacial Strategy dictates quantity and building regulations determine quality. Local planning guidance dictates qualitive issues far and above the planning & building regs. Guideline exist for eg. on open space per development but as always we are talking minimum not optimum. When did the private sector consider anything optimum other than selling price to maximise profits? And the building game especially.

Hyndburn itself sets optimum standards. At the moment we have a laissez faire policy on quality of new build and have for a while. ie minimum standards only. This is in line with the current administrations [Cllr Britcliffe's that is] policy and thinking. I know we have lost 2 years [in my time] when we could have upped that but every May these things come up for consideration.

[park381]

Graham in reply, all new property normally carries the NHBC stamp, and to do so must comply with the current building regulations.
On the housing density please check this link in particular the item
Housing density in the pathfinder site
http://www.elevate-eastlancs.co.uk/s...amework_3.html
This talks about gov. guidance. As with other authorities HBC work under the guidance of central gov.
On regional matters try this link, it shows that the ODPM is responsible
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1139476

[Less]

Originally Posted by garinda

I think the high density housing that is, and has, been demolised, ie: traditional stone built terraced housing, is preferable to some shoddy new builds set in green spaces, that aren't cared for by their tennants/owners, and have to be demolished some twenty years down the line.

An example of new build 'shoddy houses', already being knocked down can be seen on the estate near the Church traffic lights. Were they shoddy? I don't know, but I and a few others wondered why it was decided they should be knocked down rather than refurbished rumour has it they are to be replaced by larger detached houses as the area is to get a face lift.

When you consider that they were only built in the seveties it shouldn't have needed to much imagination or cash to bring them up to a decent standard for lower priced rented accomodation or first time buyers.

[SPUGGIE J]

Originally Posted by Less

An example of new build 'shoddy houses', already being knocked down can be seen on the estate near the Church traffic lights. Were they shoddy? I don't know, but I and a few others wondered why it was decided they should be knocked down rather than refurbished rumour has it they are to be replaced by larger detached houses as the area is to get a face lift.

When you consider that they were only built in the seveties it shouldn't have needed to much imagination or cash to bring them up to a decent standard for lower priced rented accomodation or first time buyers.

The decision must have come down to cost and the life expectancy of the housing after they were refurbished.

[park381]

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J

The decision must have come down to cost and the life expectancy of the housing after they were refurbished.

Or they did not fit in with Elevate's vision for Church Gateway