Fjool Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 A "Freestyle Buy to Let Mortgage" would be useful for this lady: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6039782.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twerto Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 ^^ I wonder if it got run over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 -" Having different mortgages from different lenders can be a real hassle. But it doesn't have to be like that. With a Freestyle Buy to Let Mortgage you can invest in up to 10 properties with us within 12 months and we will only charge you £500 in arrangement fees, potentially saving you thousands of pounds, not to mention a lot of paperwork As i am led to beleive "buy to let" mortgages are at a higher rate than normal ones, so it pays to advertise for the mortgage lender, whoever takes up on it, whether they can afford it or not, makes more revenue for the lender. Fancy an evil landlord consortium anybody? Could be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouth Posted November 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Planning permission denied Sense has prevailed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Yes sense has prevailed but in the time taken for planning consent to be rejected the site has just stood empty and I guess the waiting list for a home in Lerwick has grown. What is going on here?........not the first Hjaltland plan to be rejected. Surely the two bodies should be able to talk about what is acceptable to both sides so the actual permission was just a formality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouth Posted November 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Drew Ratter was saying that the SIC Housing should be providing the lead on housing in Shetland. Perhaps there has been some hair pulling in the background? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted November 8, 2006 Report Share Posted November 8, 2006 Drew Ratter was saying that the SIC Housing should be providing the lead on housing in Shetland. Perhaps there has been some hair pulling in the background? Which is in contrast to an earlier council that Drew Ratter served on which wanted to transfer the council's housing stock to a housing association. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZetlandBear Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 I seem to remeber reading that Drew Ratter wanted some sort of housing strategy for Shetland. I was on the SIC website and low-and-behold i found one. Perhaps someone should tell Mr Ratter that the Council he represents already produce the same documents he craves. Does anyone else find it embarassing to be represented by these old, senile folk who are more interested in parish pump politics than the good of the meek? (when are we suppposed to inherit the earth?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 The council have insisted previosly that when commercial developers are doing schemes they provide at least 1.5 car parking spaces per house/flat. Not sure what works out better here... there are limited options and they all have drawbacks... which drawbacks you prefer will likely depend on your circumstances. There wasn't enough on street parking spaces at this developement to cover the requirements. Planning would have been refused on a "normal" application. Putting the parking on the site would have halved the number of houses.The ecconomics would likely then have come out that you should build high-end flats. As planning was refused anyway the housing will likely end up on the outskirts of town, where there is enough space to get the number of parking spaces.Which would be a fine option if you had a car, but a lot worse it you don't Should there not be housing in the centre with no parking if people want it?And housing further out, where there is space, with parking for people that wanted that? I don't see any philosophical issue with offering people the choice between the 2 and letting them pick whichever suits them better. Practicall issues, sure, but there always problems with those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouth Posted December 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 Sadly, people in social housing rarely have a choice. Two refusals and you can be taken off the housing list I believe. Nowhere in Lerwick is too far to walk for an able-bodied person. If I can manage it then I see no reason why others can't too, but in a place where people wont even get out of their car to post a letter I can see why many need parking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZetlandBear Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 Sadly it appears that having a car is more important to some than having a roof over their head. I cannot understand why they would want to have yet another car park in an area which already has 2 (which both sit empty every night). I think it would be good to have a continued presence in the centre of town to support the small independent shops instead of living in the burbs with a car. If anyone has a car they will just go to the supermarkets. Sorry, Bigmouth but just because you walk everywhere does not mean that others will do the same. I agree with Carlos that people should have the choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 Sadly, people in social housing rarely have a choice. Two refusals and you can be taken off the housing list I believe. Nowhere in Lerwick is too far to walk for an able-bodied person. If I can manage it then I see no reason why others can't too, but in a place where people wont even get out of their car to post a letter I can see why many need parking. Another "Yes........but!" On a winters day walking to the Greenhead base or Dales Voe might count as a step too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 If the houses were built there, and it was clear from the start, no car owners allowed to be tenants, then people should be able to decide for themselves if that was a deal they wanted to take, if they could fit in with walking/buses. If they decided they couldn't make it work for them, then they should be able to stay on the lst for the next suitable place somewhere car friendly. Much the same as giving somebody a 1 bedroom flat is not a ban on them ever having kids, just another factor that they might consider overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZetlandBear Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 But the powers that be have made their decision - cars are a must. Lets just hope that Hjatland can make some scheme works that doesn't involve some high rise block with miles of tarmac parking bays. Having just seen the new houses "in the hill" i must say i was pleseantly surprised. After all the negative comments at the start it appears to be a nice looking estate (but what are the houses like inside?) - hope that something as nice is planned for Grantfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimdal Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 I have been told that Hjaltland have plans to build at Gremista, somewhere in the vicinity of the SIC garages, on the hill. If you are going to stay out there, then I reckon a car is a must. 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.