Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

Affordable Housing


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#81 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2028 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 03:40 PM

@BigMouth - You sure you don't want to do away with social housing totally?  Or force people to move to the moon?  Your diatribe belongs in the bin. :evil:

 

No certainly not.  Mass building of social housing would reduce housing need and reduce rents in the private sector.  The parasitic nature of Buy to Let would become less attractive meaning that more houses in the private sector would be released to those that wanted to buy.  Building social housing would create jobs and create wealth.  There will always be a waiting list, but I think the length of ours shame us as a community.  Those houses need to be built in places where people want to live, places that are not so geographically removed from places of employment.  They need to be in places where fuel poverty is lower, and the realism is that the further you get from Lerwick the worse it gets for all too many.



#82 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2028 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 03:41 PM

when one of the isles are evacuated and empty capt calimity can declair his independent kingom under nordic rule 

 

Everyones a winner



#83 Urabug

Urabug

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 03:51 PM

Mass building,BigMouth like a few more Sandveiens and exactly where ?  :evil:


Edited by Urabug, 18 September 2017 - 03:51 PM.

  • Suffererof1crankymofo likes this

#84 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 03:53 PM

@BigMouth - I disagree with you.  Social housing, by its very nature, was designed for those who cannot afford to rent in the private sector or buy.  In the Shetland Isles, there are a percentage of people on the waiting list who can afford to both rent and buy but are on the housing lists due to lack of availability within the private sector.  In addition, I would question the quantitative data from Housing as to how the waiting list figures are actually arrived at.

There's also the allocation policy; elsewhere in the UK a one bed property is deemed suitable for three people yet local policy dictates that if there are two people then you have the right to apply for a two bed property instead, something they actively encourage ... and it's more money in their coffers (this same local policy applies to larger properties too).  In certain areas of the north of England, whole council estates are empty ... nobody wants them!

Building social housing is quite often more expensive than building in the private sector, plus folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc.

Not everyone wants to live in town.  Besides, improve public transport and some folk might prefer to live outwith Lerwick ... or do local employers deserve to be penalised through staff being unable to get to work on time due to lack of local housing and transport; do local economies mean nothing to you? 



#85 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2028 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 03:54 PM

Whalsa said

"I think you need to familiarise yourself with the electoral boundaries. I mentioned the "North Isles" of which Skerries and Fetlar are two. It is hard enough to get Shetland's GDP (I have done a fair bit of research in this area) let alone for islands of those sizes. Shetland contributes colossal sums to the national economy and treasury, if some small areas are a net cost it is more than made up by other areas. Why should they not be supported?

A strange sort of "congratulating" by crediting all the success to "soothmoothers".

Papa Stour could be "uplifted" you say? Whatever term you couch it in, what you are proposing is forcible relocation which I suspect would be a breach of human rights among other things. 

Thinking along these lines is the thin end of a dangerous wedge. Sadly I suspect it is ill informed attitudes like these which has caused the endless centralisation and lack of investment in Shetlands rural communities. "

End

 

The success goes much further than the soothmoothers, but they were the people that got things moving.

 

There is no need for anyone to be forcibly removed.  If people want the luxury of living in remote locations they should bear the cost.  Stop paying council tax, stop receiving council services.  Houses will be provided should they wish to take them up on the mainland.

 

Rather than ill-informed, my ideas are realistic.  I don't see how you can look at the Yell ferries and accuse anyone of there being no investment in the isles.  Take another look at the international ferry terminal on Fetlar.  This is money being sucked away from the majority, where it is really needed - Lerwick and the mainland.



#86 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2028 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 04:02 PM

Mass building,BigMouth like a few more Sandveiens and exactly where ?  :evil:

 

Sandveien is the worst example of housing in Shetland and obviously the reason you chose it.  Whoever designed that place should be forced to live in it.

 

Hjaltland have some bloody awful houses and also some excellent ones, and there is no reason they couldn't throw up a lot more.   As for location, either Scalloway or Gulberwick areas would be good.  Both are well served by public transport, including being on the only routes that have sunday bus services.  Hjaltland are the only ones likely to throw up modern, light places, with some thought to householders running costs and where to put the car.

 

As I have said before in this thread, "there's no money in crofting" apparently, so the land should be cheap.



#87 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2028 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 04:30 PM

@BigMouth - I disagree with you.  Social housing, by its very nature, was designed for those who cannot afford to rent in the private sector or buy.  In the Shetland Isles, there are a percentage of people on the waiting list who can afford to both rent and buy but are on the housing lists due to lack of availability within the private sector.  In addition, I would question the quantitative data from Housing as to how the waiting list figures are actually arrived at.

There's also the allocation policy; elsewhere in the UK a one bed property is deemed suitable for three people yet local policy dictates that if there are two people then you have the right to apply for a two bed property instead, something they actively encourage ... and it's more money in their coffers (this same local policy applies to larger properties too).  In certain areas of the north of England, whole council estates are empty ... nobody wants them!

Building social housing is quite often more expensive than building in the private sector, plus folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc.

Not everyone wants to live in town.  Besides, improve public transport and some folk might prefer to live outwith Lerwick ... or do local employers deserve to be penalised through staff being unable to get to work on time due to lack of local housing and transport; do local economies mean nothing to you? 

 

Disagreement is fine.

 

You haven't told me the percentage of those that can afford to buy, more interestingly the number.  The reason that there is a lack of available properties in the private sector is because so many have been bought to let out or as holiday lets.  If they can afford to buy I am at a loss as to why they are not having a property built, surely it would be cheaper, assuming it is not in the centre of Lerwick.

 

I imagine that the waiting list number is fairly easily arrived at.  It will be the number of people who have applied for housing, plus the peole they want to house with them minus those already housed.

 

Allocating a one bed house to 3 people seems a tad Victorian, unless the third is a baby.  When I first applied for a property in Shetland I was told that there was no way that we would be considered for a two bed property for the two of us.  I sat on the list for years deliberately choosing only areas where there were no 1 bed properties.

 

There is no reason that building social housing should be any more expensive, in fact judging by the economy materials used and the small windows sizes, social housing should be much cheaper.  There is no way that government would be lashing out money on Hjaltland HA if some local builder would take on the erection and running of housing schemes.  Do I detect a note of snobbery in "folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc"?  Yes, there are some people in social housing with problems, especially addiction, but the rest of them are just like the rest of us, minding their own business, going out to work and living their lives.  I don't see burnt out cars and houses on any of the schemes I have visited.  So the few spoil it for the many, but it is hardly surprising when you hear items of news: Mick Smith 27 was arrested in his council house for taking drugs, but they don't say John Smith 27 was arrested in his private sector house later in the day for kiddy fiddling.  We are brought up on a diet of council house tenants = bad.

 

Not everyone wants to live in town, I agree, and yes better public transport would be better in ensuring uptake in properties further out, and a realistic chance that the tenants could get to work.  Local economies work where businesses set up and employ people from the local area.  I am only too happy to see that sort of enterprise.



#88 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 05:01 PM

 

@BigMouth - I disagree with you.  Social housing, by its very nature, was designed for those who cannot afford to rent in the private sector or buy.  In the Shetland Isles, there are a percentage of people on the waiting list who can afford to both rent and buy but are on the housing lists due to lack of availability within the private sector.  In addition, I would question the quantitative data from Housing as to how the waiting list figures are actually arrived at.

There's also the allocation policy; elsewhere in the UK a one bed property is deemed suitable for three people yet local policy dictates that if there are two people then you have the right to apply for a two bed property instead, something they actively encourage ... and it's more money in their coffers (this same local policy applies to larger properties too).  In certain areas of the north of England, whole council estates are empty ... nobody wants them!

Building social housing is quite often more expensive than building in the private sector, plus folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc.

Not everyone wants to live in town.  Besides, improve public transport and some folk might prefer to live outwith Lerwick ... or do local employers deserve to be penalised through staff being unable to get to work on time due to lack of local housing and transport; do local economies mean nothing to you? 

 

Disagreement is fine.

 

You haven't told me the percentage of those that can afford to buy, more interestingly the number.  The reason that there is a lack of available properties in the private sector is because so many have been bought to let out or as holiday lets.  If they can afford to buy I am at a loss as to why they are not having a property built, surely it would be cheaper, assuming it is not in the centre of Lerwick.

 

I imagine that the waiting list number is fairly easily arrived at.  It will be the number of people who have applied for housing, plus the peole they want to house with them minus those already housed.

 

Allocating a one bed house to 3 people seems a tad Victorian, unless the third is a baby.  When I first applied for a property in Shetland I was told that there was no way that we would be considered for a two bed property for the two of us.  I sat on the list for years deliberately choosing only areas where there were no 1 bed properties.

 

There is no reason that building social housing should be any more expensive, in fact judging by the economy materials used and the small windows sizes, social housing should be much cheaper.  There is no way that government would be lashing out money on Hjaltland HA if some local builder would take on the erection and running of housing schemes.  Do I detect a note of snobbery in "folk renting privately aren't necessarily going to immediately equate to those who would be social housing tenants; for example, tourists, workers here on a temporary basis, etc"?  Yes, there are some people in social housing with problems, especially addiction, but the rest of them are just like the rest of us, minding their own business, going out to work and living their lives.  I don't see burnt out cars and houses on any of the schemes I have visited.  So the few spoil it for the many, but it is hardly surprising when you hear items of news: Mick Smith 27 was arrested in his council house for taking drugs, but they don't say John Smith 27 was arrested in his private sector house later in the day for kiddy fiddling.  We are brought up on a diet of council house tenants = bad.

 

Not everyone wants to live in town, I agree, and yes better public transport would be better in ensuring uptake in properties further out, and a realistic chance that the tenants could get to work.  Local economies work where businesses set up and employ people from the local area.  I am only too happy to see that sort of enterprise.

 

The precise figures aren't available but during the last lot of council new builds, it was reported by some of the new tenants that they were on the list because they lost out when bidding for private buys.

It isn't so easy to get a mortgage on a self-build given that quite often you have to buy the land first, etc.  You basically need to be self-funding, which is fine if you have family willing to chip in.

Wrong re Housing figures.  For starters, they've never made it clear whether they count each application or the individuals listed on each application, plus folk can choose more than one area; the detail is in their 'spin' (or lack of it) when they do press releases.  Somebody already housed isn't necessarily up for a transfer or living in social housing but they are, nevertheless, on 'a list'.

You're forgetting to factor in for roads ... look at the cost of the last council new build.

Blooming heck, will ya wind ya neck in a tad with your totally off-the-wall assumptions!  I DO live in a council abode.  It's not bleeding snobbery, it's FACT.  If you're up here repairing the airport runway for three months, you rent locally, you don't join the housing waiting list!  And quite often, the same houses are rented to tourists as are rented out to others outside of the tourist season.



#89 whalsa

whalsa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 05:01 PM

Whalsa said

"I think you need to familiarise yourself with the electoral boundaries. I mentioned the "North Isles" of which Skerries and Fetlar are two. It is hard enough to get Shetland's GDP (I have done a fair bit of research in this area) let alone for islands of those sizes. Shetland contributes colossal sums to the national economy and treasury, if some small areas are a net cost it is more than made up by other areas. Why should they not be supported?

A strange sort of "congratulating" by crediting all the success to "soothmoothers".

Papa Stour could be "uplifted" you say? Whatever term you couch it in, what you are proposing is forcible relocation which I suspect would be a breach of human rights among other things. 

Thinking along these lines is the thin end of a dangerous wedge. Sadly I suspect it is ill informed attitudes like these which has caused the endless centralisation and lack of investment in Shetlands rural communities. "

End

 

The success goes much further than the soothmoothers, but they were the people that got things moving.

 

There is no need for anyone to be forcibly removed.  If people want the luxury of living in remote locations they should bear the cost.  Stop paying council tax, stop receiving council services.  Houses will be provided should they wish to take them up on the mainland.

 

Rather than ill-informed, my ideas are realistic.  I don't see how you can look at the Yell ferries and accuse anyone of there being no investment in the isles.  Take another look at the international ferry terminal on Fetlar.  This is money being sucked away from the majority, where it is really needed - Lerwick and the mainland.

Your ignorance astounds me "Big Mouth". Who is stopping paying council tax?

The Yell ferries were built in 2002. That is 15 years ago. What about the Whalsay service or the Unst service? Ageing, regulation breaking vessels and crumbling terminals which become more of a liability every year that passes. 

Money being sucked away from the majority, the opposite is true. The majority sucks the money away from the rural areas where the vast majority of money is actually generated. 

You also repeatedly refer to closeness to jobs, there are PLENTY of jobs which are located outside Lerwick. SVT and SGP for example, not to mention all the salmon and mussel farms. 

Simply put you are clueless about what keeps Shetland going, as well as about what would solve the housing problem (hint, offering everyone from the outer isles first choice in social housing would not improve matters!!!). 


  • Da Burra Shop likes this

#90 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 05:07 PM

Stop receiving council services?!!!! Well for starters, out in the sticks we do NOT get the same services as in town; for example, we don't get the pavements swept.



#91 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2028 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 05:22 PM

Whalsa said

"Your ignorance astounds me "Big Mouth". Who is stopping paying council tax?

The Yell ferries were built in 2002. That is 15 years ago. What about the Whalsay service or the Unst service? Ageing, regulation breaking vessels and crumbling terminals which become more of a liability every year that passes. 

Money being sucked away from the majority, the opposite is true. The majority sucks the money away from the rural areas where the vast majority of money is actually generated. 

You also repeatedly refer to closeness to jobs, there are PLENTY of jobs which are located outside Lerwick. SVT and SGP for example, not to mention all the salmon and mussel farms. 

Simply put you are clueless about what keeps Shetland going, as well as about what would solve the housing problem (hint, offering everyone from the outer isles first choice in social housing would not improve matters!!!)."

END

 

No need to be rude!  No-one is stopping paying council tax.  Perhaps I could have made it more simple for you.  SIC should stop collecting it from those absorbing Shetland's wealth with their lavish service expectations.

 

On the ferries, yes , I took a leaf from your book and cherry-picked what suited the argument.

 

SVT is on the mainland, and the vast majority of the salmon and mussel farms are around the mainland.  Jobs are only of use if you are qualified to do them, and often know the right people too.

 

Clueless, no, forward thinking.  Come back here in 20 years and if people are still living on the outer isles, they will be poorer, with the possible exception of Fair Isle.  Meanwhile the mainland will be thriving, the nearer to Lerwick the better off they will be.  You are of the old school of thought.



#92 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2028 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 05:41 PM

Suffereof1crankymofo said

 

"The precise figures aren't available but during the last lot of council new builds, it was reported by some of the new tenants that they were on the list because they lost out when bidding for private buys.

It isn't so easy to get a mortgage on a self-build given that quite often you have to buy the land first, etc.  You basically need to be self-funding, which is fine if you have family willing to chip in.

Wrong re Housing figures.  For starters, they've never made it clear whether they count each application or the individuals listed on each application, plus folk can choose more than one area; the detail is in their 'spin' (or lack of it) when they do press releases.  Somebody already housed isn't necessarily up for a transfer or living in social housing but they are, nevertheless, on 'a list'.

You're forgetting to factor in for roads ... look at the cost of the last council new build.

Blooming heck, will ya wind ya neck in a tad with your totally off-the-wall assumptions!  I DO live in a council abode.  It's not bleeding snobbery, it's FACT.  If you're up here repairing the airport runway for three months, you rent locally, you don't join the housing waiting list!  And quite often, the same houses are rented to tourists as are rented out to others outside of the tourist season."

 

AND went on to say

 

"Stop receiving council services?!!!! Well for starters, out in the sticks we do NOT get the same services as in town; for example, we don't get the pavements swept."

END

 

If the number on the housing list concerns you enough just write and ask them how they arrive at their figures.

 

Thank you for the information on self-build.  It is not a process that I have had any part in.

 

Yes, roads seem to be incredibly costly to build here.  I remember applying for a job at one of the companies involved in this sort of thing and the starting pay was £40,000 for what is known locally as an muckle sphincter job.

 

You protest too much on the snobbery angle I fear.  Everyones halo slips from time to time!

 

The majority should benefit.  Minorities get far too much say in our society.  Perhaps encourage people to put their litter in the bins, and the streets will need sweeping less.  In the meantime sweep where people are most concentrated.



#93 Urabug

Urabug

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 08:20 PM

There is one thing for sure a large amount of housing in Shetland has been built on good agricultural land,this is probably more to do with the cost and ease of building,but nevertheless this should have been managed better .

 

If one goes abroad to places like the Canary Islands,Madiera ect houses are built on the hillsides nearly all have a view,not like here in Shetland where they build them so that only a few (meaning mainly council types ) are left with any decent view .Be interesting to see how they position the proposed new houses on the Staneyhill,one will likely be looking into the face of the other,when they all should and could have a good view.

 

When all is said and done it is all about money,if you have the means you can build mansions if not,sleep on the street. That the way it has always been and not likely to change anytime soon.


  • BigMouth and Da Burra Shop like this

#94 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2028 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 01:42 PM

This is certainly true. I recently stayed on an estate of executive houses and the houses were turned so that none looked directly into the other's house, but as you say it is all about costs, hence why they all had drives and double garages. In social housing you can on the whole expect arrow slit windows, directly facing your neighbours and living on top of each other. This looks particularly incongruous in places where there is a good deal of empty space around. Stukka in Hillswick comes to mind, a Hjaltland HA estate where some of the houses must have stunning views, and others less so, but are crammed into a small space. I wonder if anyone considers how one's housing affects one's quality of life? I doubt it, I remember when Hjaltland HA we're building properties near Grantfield and insisting that residents weren't allowed to own cars!

#95 Urabug

Urabug

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 610 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 06:59 PM

The main objective of local authorities is to provide housing,the fact they have no view or where or how they are situated is probably of little interest to those who have to find somewhere for someone to live.

 

Think the planning departments should be the ones who make sure that houses are better located and not just "huddled" together.

 

Folk  i'm sure  look after and respect  properties that provide a reasonable view and pleasant surroundings better than those that don't.



#96 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8648 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 10:07 PM

I don't think that public housing built to the conventional street style, broadly speaking has far less neighbours disputes and are generally better appreciated and cared for by their occupants, than those in clustered together in some irregular fashion around some sort of central 'square' of some sort.

 

Somewhere a long time ago some academic type 'decided' building around a central 'square' would promote a sense of 'community' (whatever the hell that is), and they've stuck with that theoretical concept ever since. Ignoring the fact that in reality building around a central 'square' means everybody is tripping over every else and nosing in to their business continously, which would be fine if everybody were shiny, happy people. They're not, anyplace, typically the vast majority can't stand each other, and then the fight started....

 

It results in the very opposite of 'community', with pretty much everybody living in near isolation on their own little patch of grass, plotting their escape, and not giving a toss who is over what fence, as long as them and their's stays on the other side, nor what anything is like as they're not planning to be there any longer than they really must.

 

At least a conventional street layout reduces the number in your face to just the neighbour either side, and maybe the one across the street, which in turn helps minimise the chances of meeting continously someone you'd happily put in the ground and hang for if they so much as look at you the wrong way.


Edited by Ghostrider, 20 September 2017 - 10:18 PM.

  • BigMouth and Urabug like this

#97 BigMouth

BigMouth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2028 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 04:29 AM

There has always been a drive for social cohesion, but the closer people are rammed together the less the cohesion works. Problems are amplified, someone parks in somebody's space, someone's lifestyle is loud around others that want peace and quiet, axes at dawn. It doesn't help when governments and the media promote ill feeling against sections of society. The Tories and the Daily Hate are past masters of this. Not a day goes by without mention of the latest story about council tenants living in the lap of luxury with flat screen TVs at the tax-payers expense. Even if it were true the fiddles at the bottom cost considerably more than the fiddles at the top. I often wonder if council tenants are supposed to sit with all the electricity off until they have been “cured”. All of this keeps our minds off the real issues though.

Bread and circuses.