Colin Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 I think that the SIC did. Not Hjaltland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tiodylb17 Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 That's right, what did they buy it for proposed school site or housing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 The Ness of Sound was meant to be for housing when it was bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 The Ness of Sound was meant to be for housing when it was bought. So they said. Trouble is, politicians say a lot of things, but seldom tell the reason why they say them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whalsa Posted May 16, 2016 Report Share Posted May 16, 2016 I agree that some of these houses should be built in other areas of Shetland. This is just yet another step in the SIC's Grand Plan for centralisation. Locate everything in Lerwick then justify building houses there because "that is where the demand is". When they succeed in killing the outer isles of Shetland these houses may be needed for the displaced families who are not happy to have their children living away from home from secondary 1 and up. That is if they have the points to get one... thebfg and brian.smith 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post tooney1 Posted May 19, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted May 19, 2016 I would like to see land made available for affordable private housing in Lerwick if this site is going to be developed, even perhaps as much as a 50/50 split. At the moment I feel there's an in-balance in Lerwick that caters for low income and the wealthy, with the group in the middle relegated to a 30+ year old ex-council house or private rental, or just forced to move elsewhere. Ghostrider, Davie P, concerned shetlander and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davie P Posted May 19, 2016 Report Share Posted May 19, 2016 That's a realy interesting point tooney1. Anybody know of any similar initiatives elsewhere? It could also encourage some more interesting architecture. Whilst Hjaltland houses are quite 'nice', large scale developments of the same type of houses ends up becoming quite bland and generic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engineer21 Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 naturally they wont do that (offering to pvt indivduals) as that wont help the ones on the housing list...... also plots of land in lerwick are 60k+ now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooney1 Posted May 21, 2016 Report Share Posted May 21, 2016 (edited) naturally they wont do that (offering to pvt indivduals) as that wont help the ones on the housing list...... also plots of land in lerwick are 60k+ now Lack of supply drives prices up. But the only ones that can free up land in Lerwick are the biggies that have been busy buying up the town - SIC, SCT, Harbour Trust, etc. Perhaps an unhealthy mix of public money ownership exists here compared to other towns, I'm not sure. Social housing is subsided housing and the working person in the middle is subsiding it, as well as propping up business and the economy. But this same group can't get access to the quality of housing in the desirable areas they're subsidising in Lerwick, and it's an injustice. At the end of the day a capitalist society needs good quality private housing in good areas to drive and encourage economic growth, otherwise we might as well all join the housing list (which is probably happening). Edited May 21, 2016 by tooney1 Davie P 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engineer21 Posted May 22, 2016 Report Share Posted May 22, 2016 i fully agree i just cant see it happening, everyone's hell bent on building for the housing list........there will always be people on the housing list come out of school stick your bame on the list and get a house....there really no incentive to buy hence the list of folk wanting will always grow esp if you provide nice social housing as they do in Shetland. issue then becomes what size of house to build folk starting out naturally want to pay rent for a 1/2 bed but as kids arrive etc they seem to expect a larger house 3/4 bed. i dont see an end to having ppl on a housing list, pvt rents too high, no incentives to buy, social housing thats cheaper and nicer than many many pvt houses land prices in lerwick will never come down after all when its gone its gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concerned shetlander Posted May 23, 2016 Report Share Posted May 23, 2016 Well they have full Stanley hill to build on and could make nice planned areas with wide streets and parking areas, then build just a little bit at a time as afforded, but the point is they can plan for it having bought so much land at one time, instead of wee bits here and there as if dropped from the sky with no room for parking or anything. Ian_H 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted May 23, 2016 Report Share Posted May 23, 2016 the anderson school site should be open for low cost private housing shared ownership would be a decent start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 24, 2016 Report Share Posted May 24, 2016 ^ I wouldn't hold my breath, isn't there said to be a condition on the site Deed that it must be used for 'education' purposes only, otherwise ownership reverts back to the present day heirs of the original owners. I seriously doubt the SIC would just walk away from it and allow those heirs to do with it as they pleased (if they could even agree mong themselves what that was), and likewise I can't see those heirs being in the slightest interested in waiving the condition, seeing as leaving it in place increases their chances of getting their hands on a potentially profitable chunk of real estate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbiniho Posted May 25, 2016 Report Share Posted May 25, 2016 ^ I wouldn't hold my breath, isn't there said to be a condition on the site Deed that it must be used for 'education' purposes only, otherwise ownership reverts back to the present day heirs of the original owners. I seriously doubt the SIC would just walk away from it and allow those heirs to do with it as they pleased (if they could even agree mong themselves what that was), and likewise I can't see those heirs being in the slightest interested in waiving the condition, seeing as leaving it in place increases their chances of getting their hands on a potentially profitable chunk of real estate.wonder what the title deeds of both sound school and bells brae school say wouldnt put it past the council to make the old anderson site into a super primary and sell both other sites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouth Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 At the end of the day a capitalist society needs good quality private housing in good areas to drive and encourage economic growth, otherwise we might as well all join the housing list (which is probably happening). It's greedy landlords that are pushing people away from the private rented sector towards social housing! Roachmill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now