Friday, June 04, 2010
Development consultation
Residents of Dorset's Isle of Purbeck are being urged to give their views about where 620 new homes should be built.The developments will extend the towns and villages of Swanage, Wareham, Upton, Bere Regis, Lytchett Matravers and Wool.Purbeck District Council said it had a commitment to build 2,400 new homes, including affordable housing, by 2026.But this could mean building on greenbelt land, it said. Leaflets will be sent to homes in the area throughout early June and the consultation will run until 30 July.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
I received my 'Swanage and Corfe Castle' edition of the consultation document through the door a few days ago. And very good it is too. There is a desperate need for some more housing in Swanage for local young families who have long since been left behind by the property speculators. Sadly building to fully meet demand would be impossible without ruining the character of Swanage but successive District Councils have simply failed to come even close to tackling the issue. The preferred option for building north of Herston Cross (site B) and on the old Grammar School site (site D) therefore gets my support.
Yet another consultation that fails to take into account changes in government. The Tories are scrapping the need for any of this.
If we want more homes for families we should shame second homers into selling up, not build on green belt or land that should be put to community use.
The Tories say that they want to give power back to the locals, so if this is what the local council wants, then as always, plus ca change ...
I notice the site D option has enhanced comunity facilities (sports cerntre etc.) OR a new road. Guess which will be built. Stuff which needs ongoing financial commitment or a road which will be mended once every 10 years
The price of housing is determined by the amount of money going into the mortgage market. It is a self reinforcing process, Money goes in, prices go up so more money is attracted in. What happens in Swanage either in terms of the number of houses built or second homes makes absolutely no difference. If you offer people mortgages of five times their income rather than three times the price will simply rise accordingly. How could it do otherwise? If you offer mortgages to people who are a poor credit risk you drive prices up and loose a lot of the money as we have seen. Markets are not rational, its as simple as that.
No sign of anything being built on the allotments in the preferred options.
"If we want more homes for families we should shame second homers into selling up"
Who is "we"?
"not build on green belt or land that should be put to community use."
The latter is unlikely under a tory government don't you think?
If planning decisions were devolved to street or neighbourhood level nimbyism will of course triumph. Its bad enough with a dozen councillors vying with each other for reasons to say no, but imagine giving your neighbours a power of veto!
leculThanks, but that isn't news, unless you've had your head in the sand for the last few years, what is news is 600 houses 50% affordable.
Sorry I was replying to 9.55.
Allottments - that's STC clutching at straws, real planning is done by PDC
Are there people out there wanting to buy a house, then?
Our's has just joined the for sale market along with quite a few others in the area ... it's not houses in short supply, it's buyers!
Our home is a 4 bedroomed family home and, in this location, it is priced extremely reasonably, but even so a first time local buyer would probably not achieve a mortgage on, say £210K on current salaries? Anyway, how cheap is affordable housing? The figure is never discussed.
What Purbeck wants is jobs in this area for local people which pay enough to take them off benefits, and maybe get on the property ladder. The area abandons it's citizens with outdated ideas of utopian lifestyles for all. It doesn't work out does it? Money, income from local people, and spent in Purbeck, is supported by benefits in many cases. Second homes are only part of the cause of stagnation of the full-time population.
Lack of forward thinking by the 'same old faces' in power, unfortunately.
With over a thousand people on the waiting list in Purbeck and over a thousand being housed by Purbeck Housing Trust. Add in those 'under the radar' or, like me, who get so few points that it isn't worth being on the list and then need for Affordable Housing is obvious.
Are there people out there wanting to buy a house, then?
Yes, plenty.
... it's not houses in short supply, it's buyers!
No, it's Banks being too frightened to lend.
Anyway, how cheap is affordable housing? The figure is never discussed.
Oh boy, go and read PPS3. It's generally considered to be 3 to 3.5 times the local median wage. (£12 to 15K)
What Purbeck wants is jobs in this area for local people which pay enough to take them off benefits, and maybe get on the property ladder.
Purbeck! Nowhere else then! If we're going to remain a culture that aspires to owning a home, then what we need are affordable homes.
As for jobs – two Teachers earning around about £30K each might be able to get a sensible mortgage that would enable them to buy yours. What other jobs are going to pay £30K a year and have a settled couple looking to buy?
Money, income from local people, and spent in Purbeck, is supported by benefits in many cases.
Welcome to the real world.
Lack of forward thinking by the 'same old faces' in power, unfortunately.
There, I may just agree.
The consultation document defines affordable as being for rent by social landlords. It specifically excludes building for sale at reduced prices from the definition so it will do nothing for aspirant house purchasers.
It generally goes unremarked that the price of property bubbled when the UK went from funding mortgages from domestic savings, mainly building society deposits, to drawing in finance globally. The former was constrained by earnings and prices were to an extent kept under control by the amount available for purchasers reflecting earnings and savings levels. Globalisation removed this limiting mechanism hence the present situation. The clock cannot be turned back or the genie reinserted into the bottle so its a mess.
I agree with much of the above. The key issue as I see it is a shortage of houses (and not tiny flats) for local people to rent. The proposals for Swanage outlined in the consultation document indicate that 200 dwellings should be built, 100 of which will be affordable, i.e. to rent.
It could be argued that it's a shame that the proportion isn't higher than 50%. Whether the forthcoming changes to capital gains tax end up depressing house prices to a level that makes purchasing a realistic option for first time buyers on local average salaries remains to be seen......
Thanks for agreeing. Its a rare experience. Here is a thought that might not find me too many friends, but I will express it nonetheless.
If PDC had insisted that all the new blocks of flats built in Swanage in the last twenty or so years had been one floor higher the demand for second homes would largely have been met without the loss of other properties to this market we have seen. Instead they have been fixated on the view that the existing height in each road is somehow optimal and can never be exceeded.
I couldnt get a job locally which allowed me a mortgage for a house in Swanage so I moved away where there were more jobs and cheaper houses. Now I have the opportunity to return I wouldnt want to - Swanage seems to have stagnated over the years and lost its way as a town and resort. Why do people want to stay ? - must be the wonderful environment, family friends etc, fear of the unknown etc etc. All understandable but there is a choice and the solution is not just to fill the town with affordable houses so people can stay and be unemployed or carry out jobs with no future.
10.41 I think you have a point especially where housing is mixed?
"Swanage seems to have stagnated over the years and lost its way as a town and resort."
It has certainly changed but most people who have remarked on this to me say it has gone up-market. However, did it ever have a direction? I can detect absolutely no vision for the future of the town at any level, either by councils or the general public.
We certainly need an agreed vision, one with targets and a means of delivery but of course since failure is an all too likely outcome there won't be many takers from our elected representatives for putting their names to such a document.
Perhaps posters on here could suggest their vision of Swanage in 20 years time as this seems to be a popular time-scale for these things.
I finally got me copy today.
Their preferred option is pathetic. 200 house is pathetic.
A, C and D, yep, 300ish houses,yep.
B - NO
JIC - I live at the other end of town
The other bit that no-one seems to have the wit to realise is that the hospital, the Ambo centre - already has Everest in between - and the Health Centre will all become available...
Planning - my behind.
We are only 2 weeks from our move to Swanage after spending the last decade as frequent tourists to the town and despite the justified concerns discussed in your comments............. are so very happy to be coming aboard.
Yet another consultation that fails to take into account changes in government. The Tories are scrapping the need for any of this.
If we want more homes for families we should shame second homers into selling up, not build on green belt or land that should be put to community use.
Yes !!!
It is shameful that 2nd home owners get a 10% discount on their council tax!! PDC planning dept say its difficult to work out which are the second homes. Presumably they are the ones that pay only 90% council tax. Why are we so feeble at addressing this problem. Tax 200 should be implemented and the 110% extra should go towards building low cost rental housing (for people who live and work here). What is the point of using up more land to build more unaffordable housing, when many houses sit empty for the majority of the year ? This needs sorting out and given priority.
Some of people living 'under the radar' do not want to live in concrete blocks without gardens, they would be more than happy to live in Low Impact Developments with shared amenities and access to a bit of land to grow fruit and veg.
If we're not careful, we will destroy the landscape of Purbeck with endless boring buildings, that have a huge impact on the surrounding landscape and environment. If we don't 'get our act' together soon we will wake up one day to find that Purbeck is covered in roads (bypasses) and uneccesary expensive housing.
'I couldnt get a job locally which allowed me a mortgage for a house in Swanage so I moved away where there were more jobs and cheaper houses. Now I have the opportunity to return I wouldnt want to - Swanage seems to have stagnated over the years and lost its way as a town and resort. Why do people want to stay ? - must be the wonderful environment, family friends etc, fear of the unknown etc etc. All understandable but there is a choice and the solution is not just to fill the town with affordable houses so people can stay and be unemployed or carry out jobs with no future.'
You have said there is a choice 'so your choice was to move away'. Ours is to live here and enjoy ! Its a fantastic place to live, so much more than what you describe. Its the most perfect place to bring up children, to live, to be entertained, to meet with friends, to sail, to row, to walk, and to be free. Good luck wherever you are, I hope your move has brought you happiness and contentment and that you are as happy as we are.
"....PDC planning dept say its difficult to work out which are the second homes. Presumably they are the ones that pay only 90% council tax."
I do wonder why people post without the faintest idea what they're on about.
If you have more than 1 home then you have to nominate which is your main residence. If you nominate your Purbeck home as your 1st then you pay PDC 100% Council Tax.
Why do you assume that the last poster does not have a clue what they are on about?
What is the definition of a second home? How do you define a second home. Is it the one eg. in London where 'one' works, or the house in the country that is visited infrequently. What is (a planning/council tax)definition of a 'second home'?
We all think everything is obvious until we 'really' think about it.
So, its ok to lie then and name your main residence as here in Purbeck, even though this house is only visited infrequently.
http://www.ruralcommunities.gov.uk/files/CRC%20De%20Montfort%20Report.pdf
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100329/debtext/100329-0006.htm
29 Mar 2010 : Column 522
Second Home Ownership (Regulation)
I'm 5.59
the rural communities link doesn't work, and what's the point in the 6.50 post, rural politicians have been saying the same for years, even the Matthew Taylor report has been pushed under the carpet.
The funny thing is that rural communities keep on voting Tory, well, let's see if the Tories will now help their voters ...... and do what no Gov't has done since about 1947.
Sorry, that post that starts I'm 5.59, should have started
I'm 5.28
dear 5.59
you seem to have pointed out what I was saying, was that necessary?
I was answering why PDC say that it so difficult to id 2nd homes.
Fact - no comment about the ethics.
Fact - Hitler was a bar steward and we fought him. Stalin was an ever bigger bar steward and we ignored him - fact - no comment about the ethics.
I am still waiting for someone to come up with evidence showing what proportion of house prices here are explicable in terms of second home owners as distinct from the many other factors pushing prices up in nice places. It you want to make a case against them at least quantify their impact on prices so we know the extent of the problem and you can show you know what you are talking about. Telling us the proportion of housing that is second homes throws no light on prices.
Silence reigns! Funny how some people say here is a question, here is an answer, without bothering with the tedious matter of producing evidence.
It looks as if planning gain agreements will be axed next so PDC may not be able to insist that 50% of the new housing on these sites is "affordable".
With no target for the number of new homes and no section 106 agreements the whole thing could hit the buffers which will be disastrous for those who need housing.
and no money for building the affordable housing as well.
I have had a little more time to look at the changes which seem to be described adequately in the Birmingham Post at http://www.birminghampost.net/birmingham-business/birmingham-business-news/commercial-property-birmingham/2010/06/11/community-levy-to-benefit-developers-65233-26635242/
You will of course all read this rather than take what I say on trust but basically the approach of PDC to section 106 developers contributions is now out of the window.
It says "The test now requires that a planning obligation should be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; be directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind."
and "the wide interpretation of Section 106, which has long been supported by the courts, and, to date, allowed local planning authorities to seek a range of benefits which were not necessarily directly related or proportionate to the development in question, will no longer be lawful."
Wonder what PDC will make of the loss of this income.
"Sorry.....
..An error has occurred:
If you have any queries about this error, please e-mail us at support@ichelp.co.uk and we'll do what we can to help you.
XID: 957736359
SID: (null)
Varnish: (null)
TMNMError: (null)"
------------
Maybe it'll work tomorrow!
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/development/councils-to-be-given-more-power-over-hca-development-funds/6510165.article
Every council in England could be handed more control over housing and regeneration budgets, under moves being discussed by the Homes and Communities Agency.
JIC
http://tinyurl.com/39jny76
As I said earlier, the Tories have said that they want to give power back to the locals, p'raps this'll allow PDC to say well, if you want to build here then you'll have to ...
I can't help thinking
1 If "the community" wanted more affordable housing built they would have elected a different council.
2 If PDC really wanted more housing built they would have identified possible sites years ago.
3 It would not place every possible financial, planning and official obstacle in the way of developers. A bedroom bounty instead of a bedroom tax for example, paying developers an introduction fee for adding people to the council tax register. Generally encouraging house building.
Now that we have all been to the meeting (tonight, 8th July) what do we think about the proposed plans for the huge development in Herston? And lets not forget the Grammar School!
Oh and the Caravan site is no longer a goer, since the owner doesn't want low cost hosuing (no profit mate!), and Plan A on the South West side of Herston (oh! Herston twice!) is a non starter either.
So, no options! Herston and the Grammar school get it!
I'm sure that we can persuade the good planners of PDC otherwise - can't we?
I agree with the last post, although I missed the bit about Site A being a non-starter.
I felt very sorry for Stevie D. The public seemed to be blaming him for the landowners plans. One member of the public even threatened him.
Better news tho', ideas such as building above car parks, reusing the Hospital and St Marks are still on the agenda.
DCC are also still looking into a taxi boat from West Bay to B'mouth; more buses and a large Park n Ride at Holten Heath. As I'm a Public Servant too (not Council) all our conversations end with - depending on THE cuts!
The 10.02 post - points 1&2 I agree, but then I've never trusted the voter anyway.
Point 3 seems a bit silly, landowners and developers will build anywhere, the profits are MASSIVE. In London, Cousin Ken got up to 90% Affordable, and still the LO's and Devs built.
The Grammar School site proposal looked suspiciously like the last ones revamped with the main building becoming a residential home. The spin put on this is that it makes up for the loss of residential homes we have had. Last time the objection was that most of the occupants were likely to come from outside Swanage because of the high cost and were likely to have to ask Social Services for support when their funds ran out. It will be interesting to see what the response from social services is this time.
Just a remineder that this consultation ends on Friday... so send your responses off!
Post a Comment