swanageview: Housing

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Housing

http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/land__premises/local_development_framework/core_strategy.aspx

JIC

http://tinyurl.com/yc7a7vl

Latest update to where houses could be built.

Loads at Coombe, Herston, Cauldron barn, Grammar School .....

Good news tho', the ones proposed by a certain Mr Drax at the back of my parents house seem to have dissappeared.

Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 7:31 AM

32 comments:

Anonymous said...: NIMBY!; 27/3/10 9:29 am
Anonymous said...: Actually, I'd be NIMPBY.

So I wonder what that makes you?; 27/3/10 12:10 pm
Anonymous said...: The number of Council\Social HOUSES (as opposed to shoebox sized flats) built in recent years has been scandalously low. PDC please build more ASAP.; 27/3/10 8:00 pm
Anonymous said...: Lots of new housing for second home owners! Just kidding. Where are all the jobs in Swanage for future residents of these homes? This is a serious question. How long will it be before these new homes are resold for high prices like the rest of Swanage property? These homes are a good thing only if they are rent-controlled, affordable homes for locals, especially young families. But where will the jobs to support them come from? The last thing we need is more homes for second home owners or retirees. And we don't necessarily want more than our share of social housing for those on benefit from outside the area. Let's look after those who are here, first. Let's look after our young people and families first who have no means of remaining in Swanage in their own home due to the unprecedented rise in local property values, and low local wages.; 28/3/10 6:48 am
Anonymous said...: And we don't necessarily want more than our share of social housing for those on benefit from outside the area. Let's look after those who are here, first.
I agree, but I'm afraid that at least 40% must go to outsiders.

Not fair is it?.

In corfe some of the social housing went to some people from the Wimborne area. When there were corfe families still with out homes.

Anyway the original poster is happy his/her parents wont have to look out on the flotsam and jetsom of life.; 28/3/10 9:53 am
Anonymous said...: Homes for locals - the definition is usually along the lines of;

has lived locally for 3 years, or has parents living locally or had the bulk of their schooling there.

I'm the original postee and when checking the potential Drax development behind my parents house, well, I must have turned 2 pages at once, cuz it's still on the cards.

As for the 'make up' of the houses, some will be at market prices, some will be shared equity and some will be affordable. All the shared equity and affordable should be managed by Purbeck Housing Trust and thus stay 'local'.

The comments about needing more jobs, whilst true, is just a general comment. PHT have over a 1000 people on their books, and then there are the many who aren't on the books but still want homes.; 28/3/10 10:47 am
Anonymous said...: Maybe a rethink is needed? Just an observation, really. There is clear evidence that young families are being 'created' in many areas of the country, including the Swanage locality, to ensure a roof over the head without the need to save up and buy one. The housing lists will never recede.

I'm all for the Welfare State, but as long as some youngsters carry on 'producing' as a means to an end, there will be a shortage of 'social housing', or should that be 'a gift from those who want to be self-supportive' in life?

This is a problem area, there are no jobs in the town (especially mortgage supporting ones)and there is no intention of those in authority to change that. Employers need to be sought, appropriate commercial premises need to be offered, before 'benefit funded' lifestyles are an even more regular path to set out on in life.

More and more social housing is a good thing, but the distribution lacks something serious. Sadly, the only way to get a job that pays a mortgage is away from here, let's face it, the town and county officials are quite happy to ditch the Swanage youth down the road to Wareham and beyond for the final education years, often only to receive them back with partners with babies seeking supplied accommodation!

Terrible state of affairs, but when it is offered on a plate to them, having children for the financial gains thereof and a free home it is a massive incentive, putting the cart before the horse.

Not wishing to be controversial, but any thoughts on this?

Johnathan; 28/3/10 11:01 am
Anonymous said...: Terrible state of affairs, but when it is offered on a plate to them, having children for the financial gains thereof and a free home it is a massive incentive, putting the cart before the horse.

I agree, but as I have said before you look after the locals first, a few years ago, due to a certain family exploting the rules they moved from another area to here, domestic abuse etc etc. not one of swanages best imports but hey ho they were given a house by the good burghers of the PDC, my daughter ummmmmmmm still waiting!

She works all be it not earning a lot, so she is a tad miffed.; 28/3/10 11:50 am
Anonymous said...: Does anyone know what happened to the Purbeck Housing Action group? They previously made some good progress in highlighting this vital issue but seem to have disappeared in recent months....; 28/3/10 10:01 pm
Anonymous said...: I could not find any reference to particular locations for housing in Swanage in the documents linked from the posted link to PDC's consultation responses. What did come over is that Swanage wants development to be at Upton and Upton would rather it was at Swanage! Now theres a surprise. Not much support outside Swanage for having a large supermarket here as you might expect..; 28/3/10 11:51 pm
Anonymous said...: http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/housing/strategic_housing_land.aspx

JIC

http://tinyurl.com/cacshf

Sorry about that, try the ones above.; 29/3/10 7:37 am
Anonymous said...: Thank you for the new link. I have read what PDC have to say but I think it is deeply flawed in several respects.

PDC claims there is a housing requirement for a little over 400 dwellings. Thats a bit lie being able to set your own exam question. As we saw in a recent publication in terms of the ration of building to affordable housing need they are one of the worst in the country. With a housing list of over 1000 households plus a known level of incomers plus a known rate of household formation in the district to say nothing of attrition by dwellings becoming second homes 400 is laughable.

If you look at the list two things stand out. A high proportion of the numbers in the first five years are already built or under way, e.g. Newton Grange. It even includes 12 on the Pierhead site despite PDC having rejected numerous application there because the size of the proposed building was excessive. Secondly development after the first five years relies on greenfield sites. A case of quite literally kicking the ball into the long grass. Some of these sites are flood plain land. Although there is not a great deal of choice if we are to have new houses I do sense they are putting off dealing with the issues likely to surface.; 29/3/10 10:47 am
Anonymous said...: It would make far more sense to do something about the blight of second homes.; 29/3/10 11:12 am
Anonymous said...: That's 400 a year, and as this all began in, um, '08, I think, then of course their allowed to include those that have planning permission. That's their job, not building them!

Then they HAVE to say where else it may be possible to build. They CAN'T build within 400m of heathland and within, possibly 400, of a cliff. Purbeck simply doesn't have the brownfield land to meet the numbers.

Which takes me onto my next point. PDC HAVE to say where approx 2000 homes can be built. They also have to build approx 2500 around Lychett Matravers, what concerns me is that they are hoping to overturn the 2500 around LM, but then still build loads of them anyway, thus relieving the pressure on the rest of Purbeck.

The question of second homes is a national issue, STC, PDC and DCC can't do anything about it as the law stands. Now, if you think that Central Gov't is going to bring in legislation banning people from living where they want to, then you're more of an optimist than I am.

The Peak District National Park have been able to make new homes for locals only, but we're not a National Park and when Gov't looked at making us one they decided that we are too small.; 29/3/10 4:19 pm
Anonymous said...: Does anyone know what happened to the Purbeck Housing Action group? They previously made some good progress in highlighting this vital issue but seem to have disappeared in recent months....

We are still here and writing to the council ! We will all be a 'tad miffed' if any of these new houses end up as second homes. Its not necessary to have a second home, stay in a hotel, B&B, campsite, support the local tourist trade !

And to those who think that a living cannot be sought in Swanage/Purbeck then look around, and you may notice some new blood in this town and some 20 - 30 year old (locals) that are making a reasonable living. What's needed is not more ghetto type horrendous depressing houses, but affordable/either to buy or rent houses with small gardens.
Not all young people are having babies just to get a home.Please don't stereotype.

How can the second home issue be sorted out, yes people have a choice where they live, so why don't they come and live here and commit, instead of reserving a house for their retirement. If this is an ok situation, then 'what if', every house eventually became a second home, who would look after the place, what a sad day that would be. So we have a choice, we either try to make things better and a more vibrant place to live, making it possible for our younger people to stay here, or we give up, and advertise Swanage as a second home and retirement retreat !!; 29/3/10 11:21 pm
Anonymous said...: Now that MPs are going to be banned from having second homes paid for by the taxpayer, perhaps Parliament will suddenly be much keener on doing something about it?; 30/3/10 10:03 am
Anonymous said...: Please can we not descend into postings of "it would be nice if..." Whether new dwellings become second homes is irrelevant. If they are not others will be. It would make more sense to recognise reality and build as much as possible for the second home market to take the pressure off other property.

Does anyone seriously entertain the notion what with governments of both main parties having destroyed manufacturing and wrecked the economy through excessive financial deregulation over a 30 year period they are going to regulate the housing market now? The tide has not turned that much.; 30/3/10 10:59 am
Anonymous said...: There's a kernal of sense in what you say, but you're also acting like the banks - there's a need - meet it.

I think we can see where that has led!

I agree, we need more second homes, but we need homes for locals more. The current legislation - Section 106, is weak, but is our 'best chance'.

Just for the sake of argument let's say 50% affordable - permanently - and 50% at Market prices. At the moment PDC have to build 2000 homes - I'm ignoring the 2500 at Lychett - that's a 1000 for locals and a 1000 for others, including locals.

Not perfect, but what is?; 30/3/10 5:30 pm
Anonymous said...: Please can we not descend into postings of "it would be nice if..." Whether new dwellings become second homes is irrelevant. If they are not others will be. It would make more sense to recognise reality and build as much as possible for the second home market to take the pressure off other property.

We do not need more second homes!!!!

What is reality ? Reality is whatever we choose to make it. The reality is that the bankers have had huge bonuses and the country is in a deep recession, this is reality, that doesn't mean its right to spend more money to get ourselves out of this massive problem.

I don't agree that more second homes should be build - what defines a second home - and expensive one that no one around here can afford. So we don't need it. Its surplus to requirements, and is eating into precious land we may need to use in a much more intelligent way.; 1/4/10 1:07 am
Anonymous said...: "We do not need more second homes!!!!"

People want lots of things they do not "need". We don't need a fashion industry, an entertainment/sports industry, a cosmetics industry, religion etc. etc. but we have them. How do you intend going about persuading people not to buy second homes because they don't really "need" them?; 1/4/10 10:06 am
Anonymous said...: So, as we descend into yet another pointless debate about 2nd home owners, what about all the homes that are being thought about?

Doesn't anyone have any thoughts on those?; 2/4/10 10:00 am
Anonymous said...: No idea what the answer is.

If there is no control over second home ownership, then what is the point of building any houses at all if they end up being bought up and not lived in, this crazy situation is not going to improve.

Pointless debate or not, its reality.; 5/4/10 8:31 pm
Anonymous said...: I am puzzled by the last comment. Houses are built because the builder thinks there is a market for them. That is the "point" of building them. There is no rational allocation system.

If new houses in Swanage are so expensive that residents cannot afford them and in consequence they become second homes then the said residents have suffered no detriment. If the houses were not built they could not buy them, if they are built they cannot afford them so they are in the same position either way. Thats the market economy I am afraid, warts and all. Regrettably there are more votes to be gained in most marginal constituencies in the aspiration to own a weekend retreat than in abolishing the right to buy whatever property you can afford so it is not going to change. Dorset South is an exception.; 6/4/10 10:25 am
Anonymous said...: The poster above said 'How do you intend going about persuading people not to buy second homes because they don't really "need" them?'

Well you could just try asking them not to. Even by raising the topic you could make someone think about the effects their purchase may have. It probably won't work most of the time but it's better than doing nothing.

Local councillors say that there is nothing they can do. That is wrong because they don't just have to rely on laws.

For a start they could put a poster up in Town/Village Hall windows saying please think about the effect too many second homes have on a community. They could ask all estate agents do this too - and talk to the Echo and Gazette abut why they want to highlight the issue.

How big a problem is it? Purbeck could show the extent of second home ownership and the effect it has. They could easily publish a list of all houses that claim a 10 per cent second home council tax discount. Locals could then grass up those that are claiming 50 per cent single occupancy instead.

Better than all of Purbeck getting to the state Worth is in, which leads to graffiti attacks.; 6/4/10 12:10 pm
Anonymous said...: While that last post is 'nice', it rather makes me think of going to Tescos, picking up some produce, and having a member of staff tap me on the shoulder and say - look you shouldn't buy that, it was grown in a foreign country and if you buy the locally produced organic product, you'll help to save the world. Don't worry about the fact that it's twice as expensive!

Just a thought - PDC publish all the houses that get the 10% CC reduction. As happens with professional footballers, when they are playing away - whoops! - some of their houses get broken into.

PDC publishing which homes are not fully occupied would be a great job creation scheme, but not the sort we really want!

We also need to remember that if you own more than 1 home then you have to nominate which is your main home, I'm sure that some 2HO's have nominated their Purbeck home as their main one; why should they get anti-theft protection?

Please don't bother mentioning that one person nominates one home and the other the other, if you get what I mean, married couples can only have one main residence and for people who co-habit it's nearly always the same as well.

Hey, it's tough out there.

Our best chance is PDC using Section 106 successfully and getting us a load of permanently affordable homes.; 6/4/10 5:31 pm
Anonymous said...: I wouldn't get a member of Tesco staff tapping me on the shoulder as I'd be shopping locally anyway. Some people do have better natures that you can appeal to. Honest.; 6/4/10 9:56 pm
Anonymous said...: "Locals could then grass up those that are claiming 50 per cent single occupancy instead."

Whilst the idea of a curtain twitchers charter is quite funny in a Carry On film sort of way what would happen next? Does the council then send someone with a clipboard round to knock on the door at midnight every night until they have found nobody at home for 183 days out of 365? How do you prove a house is unoccupied? Set up a secret bedroom police perhaps?; 6/4/10 10:19 pm
Anonymous said...: It's actually only a 25% reduction for single occupancy, but still might be worth chasing. PDC could charge the full amount and then ask the resident to appeal.

From PDC website:

You may appeal to the council if you think the amount shown on your bill is incorrect.
Any appeal should be made in writing. The council will consider your case and if you have not been contacted within two months or if no agreement has been reached by this time, you have a further right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Making an appeal does not allow you to withold payment or part payment of the council tax. If your appeal is successful you will be entitled to a refund of any overpayment.

Also:

'If your bill indicates that a discount has been allowed you must tell the Council of any change of circumstances which affects your entitlement within 21 days of the change. If you fail to do this you may be required to pay a PENALTY OF £50.00 as well as a back dated bill.'; 6/4/10 10:58 pm
Anonymous said...: What a great idea!

The Credit Crunch is solved!

The next Gov't could just assume that we all earn over £150,000 and tax us all at 50%. It'd be up to us to prove that we don't earn (quite) that much!; 7/4/10 4:26 pm
Anonymous said...: Is a list of second homes available? Would be good to see just how much of a problem it is. Apparently Worth is up to 75 per cent second homes and Langton is 25.; 7/4/10 6:08 pm
Anonymous said...: "PDC could charge the full amount and then ask the resident to appeal. "

?? Sounds like a one way ticket to the local government ombudsman to me.

What are you suggesting - charge full council tax to people who are claiming the 10% discount for second homes and therefore pretend they are not second homes at all or charge all the households with only one occupant 100%? Assuming that tax payers are fibbing and expecting them to prove their innocence may have drawbacks.

In any case the 10% discount does not seem to be claimed by a particularly high proportion of second home owners. Its only going to be £100-150 a year for most of them - the price of taking the family to one of our excellent restaurants for dinner on one of their many weekends here.; 8/4/10 10:33 am
Anonymous said...: How do you prove a house is unoccupied? Set up a secret bedroom police perhaps?

Mmm..look through the window, if all the furniture is covered in white sheets, this is usually the first clue. Second clue is that most of their letter boxes are in their garages, so passers by cannot see all the unopened post piling up on the doormat.

A suggestion that all second home owners (neighbours will know who they are) pay at least tax 200 and all the extra tax goes into supporting Purbeck, and then don't let any more houses be sold as second homes. Its a crazy system. The builder builds the type of houses that only second home owners can afford. Result a bit less land for affordable homes to be built on.
Surely someone is capable of sorting this dilemma out! Other places have achieved this. Perhaps PDC should seek advice from councils elsewhere.; 15/4/10 2:00 am

swanageview

Pages

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Housing

32 comments:

ShareThis

Blog Archive

Links

Search This Blog

Labels

Unique visits

swanageview

Pages

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Housing

32 comments:

ShareThis

Blog Archive

Subscribe to Swanageview

Links

Search This Blog

Labels

Unique visits