78 building plots in Swanage.
Just as Purbeck Housing Action dies so PDC release their, sorry, our ¨Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment¨ (SHLAA).
See: http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/housing/strategic_housing_land.aspx
and just in case: http://tinyurl.com/cacshf
I´ve only had a brief glance but it´ll complete the Rabling Rd, uh, development. Fill in around Bon Accord and hugely expand Herston - but not as much as it might´ve.
After a quick look, that´s about 660 new homes in Swanage, 40 in Worth/Harmans Cross, loads around Arne and Stobo´ro.
The Lychett Matravers/Minster bit is still included, but possibly qualified.
renter - as was.
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 5:44 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Hm, most interesting but not quite what I was expecting. If you look at the list of Swanage sites quite a number have already been developed/redeveloped, sold, all done and dusted, and a lot of the rest are in the pipeline so not many new sites identified which in my innocence I had thought was the purpose of the exercise.
Considering that it´s 660 new homes in Swanage, which bits do you think have been omitted.
I can only think of 3.
Oh, damn, sorry.
renter
My point was that out of the 660 a fair number have already been built or are on the way, e.g. Netwon Grange, Station Rd, the old snooker hall, Shore House are all part finished. 30 De Moulham Rd and 2 Gannetts Pk are finished. Apart from the Grammar School and the Herston field the rest are all small private development.
The trouble is with all of this is that PDC canno guaranteed all new housing to be affordable housing for locals or first time buyers!
No more housing out of the price range of ordinary people is required. Land is so precious that if affordable housing cannot be guaranteed then it should be retained as it is or if necessary, in the future be used as allotments. The price of food is increasing so rapidly that this will be necessary.
There is so much housing for sale in Swanage and surrounding villages that the local market is saturated with expensive housing, some new properties built by local developers have remained empty for over a year. Perhaps if all this housing remains unsold, the price of these will continue to drop, but how will the council then avoid them being snapped up as second homes?
"No more housing out of the price range of ordinary people is required."
More day dreaming. We live in a market economy. Why pretend we do not? Socialism of property in one seaside resort is not about to happen. This is not the peoples republic of Swanage, it is part of a nation that has a free market in property which is not about to be abolished. Sorry if I am sounding irritable this morning but this "it would be nice if" level of discussion does annoy me.
Sorry if that last remark was rather bad tempered. I just think that it is unrealistic to expect the free market to be abolished or manipulated so in the interest of people who want to live in attractive places. Purbeck Housing Action had this pointed out to them when they invited a speaker from PDC.
Than I hope you have a better suggestion. What do you suggest should be done so that people around here do not need to live in temporary accommodation, sheds, barns and caravans, or young people not eve able to leave home. You say that 'we live in a market economy' well this economy is not too healthy at the moment, so maybe its time to look outside of the box.
I would value your solution to the problem of housing in Purbeck.
All things are possible, so to say that they are not is very short sighted.
A few comments from the PDC online Affordable Housing Section: Please look on the PDC Affordable housing website for further details.
Affordable housing for everyone
‘We will work towards ensuring that everyone in Purbeck has the opportunity of a decent home.’
In a recent survey Purbeck was identified as the least affordable place to live (outside of central London) in terms of the ratio between the average high house price in Purbeck of £242,500 and a below average local wage of £24,600, although it is recognised that many family incomes are much less. We want to encourage our young people to gain skills and remain in the District. Being able to afford a home will be a priority for them and we need to look at ways of helping them achieve this.
“I want to buy a house and live in Purbeck in the future but I don’t think there are enough houses for first-time buyers because people are buying second homes”Consultation comment 2005
Over 1500 homes in Purbeck, up to 40% of the total number in some coastal villages, are holiday or second homes. “There is a very great need for affordable housing to buy or rent for young families. Having to pay for expensive renting in the private sector people cannot afford to save a deposit to buy ”Consultation comment 2005
“If the housing issue for the 20-40 age group can be solved then most of the other problems in this area will follow. Unless we retain balanced communities there will be no economy either and no carers for older people! NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT!!” Consultation comment 2005
If the wages were increased to match house prices 1st time buyers could afford houses. Yes initially house prices would rise but as goods and services rise aswell less people would afford 2nd homes. it seems that employers vie to pay the least.That's what happened in London. 1st time buyers there cann't afford houses so they have to move out to near bye.
The market economy is, as has been said, looking unhealthy, but nothing suggests it is about to be swept aside. Bolsheviks are thin on the ground and I do not see much sign of demands to abolish capitalism so we can have more private ownership of housing which is after all the demand of those living here who want to buy property.
All of the solutions suggested have had major flaws which makes me suspect that the problem will not be resolved. The fact that half of home owners aspire to have a second home suggests that any political leader who campaigns on restricting this is likely to face a long period in opposition.
PDC members make sympathetic noises but look at their hostility to the housing target they were given. Mre houses? No thanks! is the reality of their position
'PDC members make sympathetic noises but look at their hostility to the housing target they were given. More houses? No thanks! is the reality of their position'(1.43)
Have you wondered why PDC were opposed to this. Maybe its because they are starting to listen to local people. The developers, I believe, are only required to build 1 affordable house in every five.
Back to the original problem in that, what is the point of building houses for the sake of houses, filling up land unecessarily. The government do not stipulate what sort of housing-just build, build, build. There is plenty of expensive unsold housing already, just look around Swanage. Only affordable is needed around here for homes4locals or people to live and work around here. Isn't it amazing that as you say half of home owners 'aspire to have a second home', maybe they should aspire to have something else. How much longer will we all behave like ostriches?
And maybe pigs should fly. How were you planning to persuade them to want something else?
Come to think of it there are precious few places that are nice to live in where you would expect the inhabitants to say "what this place needs is more people moving here".
The tourism industry spends billions persuading people that seaside and village locations are so wonderful that they are where everyone wants to go so on holiday so it is hardly surprising that a proportion of them decide they want a permanent presence in one of these idyllic locations. Look at the way the Mail gives away a country cottage from time to time when its circulation is flagging.
Here comes the end of the Free Market. PDC have committed to 35% affordable on developments of 4 or more.
Bloody odd figure to chose tho´
4, so 1 = 25% so 2 affordable?
5, so 1 = 20% so 2 af´ble?
6, so 1 = 16.66% so 3 af´ble?
7, so 1 = 14.30% so 3 af´ble?
8, so 1 = 12.50% so 3 af´ble?
9, so 1 = 11.11% so 4 af´ble?
10, so 1 = 10.00% so 4 af´ble?
Bored now!
If PDC are going to be mathematically accurate then a huge number of 3´s, lots of 4´s, 5´s, 7´s and loads of 8´s.
But then that´s the problem with base 10, we should´ve stuck with base 64!
renter
Post a Comment