Scorrie Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 It is not the young hard workers who are looking for a house near their work you are subsidising, they pay for their house.It is the people who are getting their rent payed by benefits you are subsidising, if they don't have a job to travel to they can stay anywhere.Plenty of buses! Incorrect. Cooncil rents are below what it costs everyone else to buy their house or rent privately. So I'm subsidising your "hard workers". Personally, I have no problem in subsidising social housing for those who are on benefits, providing they are genuine. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to personally vet each benefit recipient - so I do the sensible thing and avoid treating all those on benefits as untermenschen..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrie Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Just who would be paying for those big mobile homes that families of four could live in unlinkedstudent? And scorrie i didnt say the young couples trying for accommodation expect to get housed exactly where they choose. What Im saying is they arent being housed at all, even if they try to get housed in private accommodation they will find it difficult to get housed and will struggle with renting costs. As Im sure you are well aware Shetland is an expensive place to stay with all the greedy landlords filling their pockets with the profits of properties they rent out. More expensive than where, exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbie Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 The chalets at hoofields are in fact mobile homes .When they arrived they had wheels on them and were towed up there .When in position the wheels were removed.I believe because they are not classed as permanent homes this has caused legal problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbie Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 I have heard that local authorities are duty bound to provide caravan sites . wrong there. I thought they had a legal duty to provide sites for ''travellers'' maby that was just in England . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvercloud Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Hi, We currently live in a static caravan and have done for past 4 years with my family while we are doing a selfbuild. It has been suggested on many occasions, why not get a council house or housing assoc house while we do our build and we would get accommadation We moved up to Shetland to do our selfbuild project knowing exactly what we were doing and getting into spending many hours researching. I do not and would not expect the council /HA to house us unless we were in some kind of emergency genuine need. The only thing we might have considered was getting Grand Designs whilst we build, partner still considering this. It was also suggested that we write a book of our selfbuild adventures It has also been suggested that we temporaily split up, I could live in HA / council house with the children while partner finishes the selfbuild and then get back together which apparently is what some do . Like said it also been suggested rent privately don't pay your rent get evicted and get council to house us while partner finishes the build. If this is what is going on, then it most definately needs looking into with better background checks. Static caravans would only work if they are correctly sited they can be cosy no problem. If your going to use static caravans on larger scale than just odd person using them eg self building, a proper park that is well maintained and properly landscaped otherwise its just going look like a massive dump and would become an eyesore on Shetland landscape. Wooden chalets would probably better option and just as cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 I have heard that local authorities are duty bound to provide caravan sites . wrong there. I thought they had a legal duty to provide sites for ''travellers'' maby that was just in England . Nope, not any more. Conservatives removed that. The irony is, if councils were to install new such sites, it would go to their homes allocation and they would get more money from the GOV as New Homes Bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandagirl Posted March 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 More expensive than where, exactly? I would have thought that anywhere in Britian would be cheaper than here. Ive heard that people sell there houses in England and can easily buy a property here and have plenty of money left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 the council has empty buildings that could be converted into flats bedsits. so apart from the cost of conversion it would be reasonably cheap. look at what they are trying to sell you could easily get 20-40 flats out of what they are trying to sell. as they are planning new halls for the new school what's wrong with using a few of the old school buildings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Are they not moving out of some school buildings because of their unsuitability, and of course, high costs to maintain? The old EMI buildings in West London were converted to flats, though, they were far easier to convert with their mill like floors. These housed an influx of Africans escaping torture and political vendettas. Folk have converted redundant churches here into flats, the prices for them are a little higher due to the building. I would not hold that banner up until you were versed with the true costs, including servicing such buildings for the next couple of decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 ^ Hjaltland seemed quite happy to grab the old Baptist kirk, as did Whatsits Fish with the St Olaf's Hall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvercloud Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Can you buy the Hjaltland houses here at present like some areas down South ? Would it not be sensible idea not to allow people buy Housing assoc and council now, and when they no longer are needed, someone else could make use of them instead of them be allowed to be sold off .Would it also help prevent people trying to cheat a sytem in thinking if they could get hold of one, sit with it a few years then apply to buy it and then sell privately in future for profit. Otherwise your building affordable housing only to be allowed to be sold off at later date not really helping the emergency housing list? Would also not be sensible *if* your circumstances changed that you then could afford to rent privately after being given council house you be encouraged to rent privately to free up a house/flat whatever for someone else in a more vulnerable position. Should these houses in current situation of lack of housing be seen as a house for life to be poetentially sold off privately at a later date . I don;t know how it exactly works here whether they can be brought after x number year or not I know they can down south . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 @GR May be the case, there however may have been other funding involved, so the costs may not have been borne by the HA. The Shetland Local Development Plan is in interesting document, though, as with others of a similar nature, big. It shows all the future wishes for development as discussed with the locals that got involved. http://www.shetland.gov.uk/planning/LocalDevelopmentPlan.asp As HA rents appear cheaper, they would be. If you owned several thousand houses, you would have a bit of leverage. Private rents shot up when the "Fair Rent Assessments" were removed. As a tenant, you could ask if the rent you were paying was fair for what you were getting. If it was not, it could be adjusted. That however came for attack by Landlords. Though the same Landlords are quickly raising the rents on new rents for single occupancy flats and houses. I have seen one flat dearer than a 2 bed house.So, imagine the Housing Benefit bill if HA did raise rents to match the sometimes greed of private landlords, we would all pay more or loose more, also, those hit with the bedroom tax would have to live on less and then claim more benefits elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvercloud Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Fair point, so they are kept whilst your living in them and not be allowed to be sold off after x number of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbie Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 One way to encourage people to live in council houses that are harder to let outside of Lerwick would be to reduce the rent .Thus making them a more attractive proposition then they are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbie Posted March 21, 2013 Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 Do you think prospective social housing applicants should be means tested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.