Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sha

Green Belt homes plan is madness

Recommended Posts

Sha    112

Too important to get lost in the archive. - Answers still needed.

“Green Belt homes plan is madness”

 

By David Skentelbery on  15th August 2017 7:00 am News, Village Life

OUTRAGED councillors at Appleton say they are horrified at proposals to build more than 9,000 houses on Green Belt land in South Warrington.

The plans will mean that all fields in Appleton will be built over, the character of Stretton and Appleton Thorn villages and the landscape of Higher Walton will be destroyed forever, they say.

Cllr Judith Wheeler (pictured) said: “It is madness to destroy beautiful countryside with some of the highest landscape value in Warrington.

“If the Green Belt has to go, it should be where the land is unattractive and has no amenity value and that means not all of south Warrington.

“The town would be made poorer by the loss of this countryside. It is not just local people who love their area, many from across the town appreciate the green space on their doorstep.

“Just take a walk, cycle or drive through the area and you realise that putting all our fields under concrete is criminal.”

Cllr Wheeler says that with the exception of the Omega development, most of northern and eastern Warrington will be largely untouched by the plans. Yet the area is equally suitable and more sustainable.

“The 2017 Government White Paper on Housing states that ‘maintaining existing strong protections for the Green Belt, and clarifying that Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements’.

“There are dozens of brownfield sites in Warrington that should be developed first before turning to other areas.

“Fiddlers Ferry is a potentially vast area that could contribute to Warrington’s housing needs and this does not appear to have been considered in the council’s plans.

“Regenerate the town centre, make it an attractive place to visit – it isn’t at the moment.

“Build on the brownfield and then, if Warrington is still an employment boom town, needing more housing, move onto the greenfield sites, put the infrastructure in and we will accept our share of housing.”

Cllr Wheeler says the council talks of a “garden city” – but says she has yet to meet anyone, anywhere in Warrington, who wants the town to become a city.

“A prosperous and attractive town yes, a city no.””

Positron on 15th August 2017 9:03 am 9:03 am

When city status is some councillors’ mindseye there is no limit to what they will do; regardless of the aims and objectives of the people who elected them and whose interests they are supposed to represent and put into effect. It is increasingly clear there is a world of difference between what the people of Warrington want and what their supposedly elected representatives say they should have.

 

Barbara Kandu on 16th August 2017 7:18 am 7:18 am

She may not have mean’t it to sound as such but Cllr Wheeler’s quote is the best example of a NIMBY yet; “most of northern and eastern Warrington will be largely untouched by the plans. Yet the area is equally suitable and more sustainable”. In other words build anywhere except Appleton. She is obviously blissfully unaware of the 1300 houses on Omega, 1900 on Chapelford, 155 on Dawson House, 100 on Lingley Mere, 99 on Gemini – I could go on. Sankey’s character has already been lost due to mass development and roads in the area are heavily congested so its perhaps time that Appleton and Stretton took some inevitable development.

 

Sha on 16th August 2017 1:17 pm 1:17 pm

Cllr Judith Wheeler is not being a ‘nimby’, she is a political careerist playing pathetic party-political point-scoring games and all this ‘horror’ and ‘outrage’ is just hypocritical.
Cllr Wheeler and fellow SW Lib Dem councillor’s ‘campaign’, ‘HCA Rethink South Warrington’, now ‘Sustainable South Warrington’, misled local residents into believing that ‘previous permissions’ given to HCA meant that the developments couldn’t be stopped and that the best people could hope for was to ensure that adequate infrastructure was included. This is total rubbish! The ‘previous permissions’ have no bearing whatsoever on the present plans submitted.
Councillor Wheeler’s arguments against the developments are merely political posturing.
Note in the above article she says, “not all of South Warrington” and “put the infrastructure in and we will accept our share of housing”.
Who is she referring to when she says ‘we’? her political comrades perhaps but certainly not the residents of South Warrington, the majority of whom don’t want to lose any green land to housing. And, why should we? The ridiculous housing targets put forward in the draft local plan are not ‘being forced upon us by central government’ as has been implied but are merely the result of local politicians (of all parties) ‘fantastical, aspirations’ for ‘New City status’.
Cllr Wheeler says she “has yet to meet anyone, anywhere in Warrington, who wants the town to become a city”. Truthfully, that should have been ‘any member of the public’ – because she will certainly have met many councillors who do crave ‘New City status’.
BARBARA, do not be taken in by wily politicians. This setting up of a North / South divide is a commonly used ‘divide and rule’ tactic, it is to try to prevent the various areas of the town uniting – because united we can easily get these horrendous housing targets scrapped.
There is enough land, including brownfield and plots which already have permission, to meet Warrington’s needs for housing well into the future. The ridiculously high targets in the draft plan are not needed and are certainly not wanted by the people of Warrington – and we don’t need to accept them!
Don’t be fooled into believing that the proposed developments are ‘inevitable’. No greenbelt /green fields need to be lost anywhere in our town.
Wherever they are they are precious, not just to the people who live close to them but to everyone, they are the ‘breathing lungs’ of our town and our survival depends on them.

 

Cllr Steve Parish on 17th August 2017 8:27 am 8:27 am

There is some confusion here. Any aspiration for Warrington to be designated a city rather than a town is not a priority for most councillors. Providing housing is. There really is not that much brownfield land left. We bemoan the loss of major manufacturing in the town – but every former steelworks is covered with housing.

But the government came up last year with promoting “garden villages, towns and cities” which would get special government support. Technically the proposed area at Appleton would be a “garden village” (under 10000 homes) but the concept of garden cities is a familiar one (Hampstead, Welwyn, Letchworth) that arose from the ideas of Ebenezer Howard (Ebenezer the garden city geezer)

The council has resisted greenfield development (e.g. Peel Hall) but (a) we need more housing and (b) the law is on the developers’ side.

I could point out that Cllr Wheeler’s party was in government when the planning system was shredded to encourage more development, particularly housing, so “the default answer to a planning application is yes”.

 

Positron on 17th August 2017 6:09 pm 6:09 pm

It has been evident for a long time Steve, that city status has been seen as a prize worth having in the minds of some, if perhaps not all on the Council. Hasn’t Terry O’Neill been reported as keenly seeking city status for the town? He has also been reported as saying, in the context of borough wide traffic congestion, something like “Not a single house will be built until the infrastructure problems are resolved”. Most reasonable people in Warrington recognise the need for more housing, particularly affordable and social housing, but those presently living here also know from their daily journeys that the town’s infrastructure, not the individual localised infrastructures for developments scattered across the borough, has been a pressing priority for several years (decades?).
Why have successive administrations pressed ahead so long approving (and apparently encouraging as you say) development after development whilst paying at best scant regard for the infrastructure?

 

Positron on 17th August 2017 8:52 pm 8:52 pm

Having just read the Local Plan Consultation documents and followed that with a very brief examination of the website, I think you should seriously reconsider your assurance Steve that any aspiration for Warrington to be designated a city rather than a town is a low priority for most councillors.
The website documents contains such phrases as “Overall approach – Warrington New City…Warrington Garden City Suburb” “..delivery of Warrington New City”
But any doubts on this score are dispelled in this comment: “The Council believes planning for this [the preferred option] level of growth provides a unique opportunity for Warrington to make the transition from New Town to New City…”(sic)
It seems this present administration like some of its predecessors has some questions to answer.

 

Sha on 17th August 2017 11:16 pm 11:16 pm

There is no confusion here CLLR STEVE PARISH, other than that which you are trying to cause.
As POSITRON has pointed out, there is ample evidence that seeking ‘City Status’ is a priority for WBC – and supported by many councillors.
Providing housing is a priority – but the housing proposed is not the type of housing needed by the people of Warrington. A quick look on Rightmove will show you that there are plenty of homes up for sale & rent – the problem is that the people who need homes can’t afford them. They will be far less able to afford the £500.000 + or the ‘affordable’ £400,000 homes proposed!
This “garden village” will be nothing but a dormitory estate for newcomers who work elsewhere.
Re the ‘concept’ of the garden village – the ‘New Towns’ were supposed to incorporate these ideals and we all know what an off-target, cock-up became of that!
You say, “the council has resisted greenfield development, e.g. Peel Hall”. I’d say, resisted up to now because if this site had been given permission then the ‘housing target’ card couldn’t be played to try to get permission on the SW sites. Peel Hall can be back on the agenda – and the ‘affordable need’ card pulled out at any time in the future.
As for your trite, “the law is on the developer’s side”. You are attempting to use this as a scare tactic and like Cllr Wheeler attempting to mislead people into thinking there is no option but to accept these developments. It won’t work! I suggest you study up on recent planning policy and research recent case histories.
There is no reason why the housing need of Warrington people cannot be met without encroaching on green land. There is enough brown belt sites and sites for which developers already have planning permission but have been allowed to ‘land bank’.
Why don’t you just be upfront and say the real reason all of you councillors – of all parties – are so desperate to promote the building of multi-thousands of band D housing to be built?

 

Positron on 18th August 2017 7:57 am 7:57 am

The affordable housing and social housing needs to be built within the environs of Warrington, not created by funding from developers in Warrington to assist Torus’ actions in neighbouring boroughs.

 

Positron on 18th August 2017 2:09 pm 2:09 pm

Where are you Cllr Steve Parish, we’re waiting for your reply?

 

Cllr Steve Parish on 19th August 2017 11:45 pm 11:45 pm

Reply to what? You seem to know better than councillors do what we want, even what we think. Councillors have little to do the calculations of housing need (because some councillors, mentioning no names or parties, would just say not in my ward).

Anyway, talking about a “city” means nothing in terms of the local plan, and for those who want to know the government guidance, here you go:

To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:
•use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period
•identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable1 sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land
•identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15
•for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target
•set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.

 

Sha on 20th August 2017 11:46 pm 11:46 pm

CLLR STEVE PARISH. Are you for real? Do you seriously expect us to believe this twisted take on the truth?
You say, “talking about a “city” means nothing in terms of the local plan,” so why is the housing target set so high?
As you quoted; Govt guidance ……local planning authorities should:
•set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.
Warrington does not have a ‘need’ for the amount of housing proposed and most certainly no ‘need’ for the type of housing proposed for Appleton, Stretton, Grappenhall.
However, WBC’s ‘approach’ is not just to deal with housing need it is geared to mass expansion to progress their aspirations to turn Warrington into a city.
Central Government is not forcing mass expansion on us, it is WBC who are attempting to do that!
As for your saying “Councillors have little to do (with) the calculations of housing need”.
I can well believe that! but I can’t think of any reasonable excuse why they should not!
We would expect that our councillors should be keeping a close eye on how housing need is calculated -to ensure that the calculations truly ‘reflect local circumstances’ and not just the aspirations of developers and members of the executive board and council officers. We would expect them to effectively scrutinise decisions. We would expect them to ensure that the public are informed of all proposals for the town’s future and to ensure that effective, public consultations are held. We would expect them to be putting in some time and effort to work for the interests of the people they are paid to represent!
However, they all seem to be backing the ‘mass expansion’ plans which the vast majority of the people oppose.
Now, STEVE, without any more bull****, can you just answer the question,
“WHAT IS THE REAL REASON all of you councillors – of all parties – are so desperate to promote the building of multi-thousands of band D housing?”

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grey_man    172

I always feel a lot of sympathy for Steve and others like Geoff Settle because they always get it in the neck for discussing things in public, unlike the people who are the real problem who'd rather die than be held up to public scrutiny. That is why Terry O'Neill and Steve Broomhead always attach themselves to good news and yet it is a 'council spokesperson' who responds to bad and contentious news.  

However, the idea of a 'garden village' or a 'garden city' is misguided, at best. I know why the council is calling it this; it's the usual spin to cover up for what will really happen.

Ebenezer Howard came up with the idea in the 19th Century and his theory is as relevant to modern life as many from that time. You may as well advise doctors to start treating people based on the four humours theory than talk about 'garden villages'. It was developed before car ownership. Even in the days before mass car ownership, it became apparent that the idea did not accord with human nature. There will be one of two possible outcomes and it is not a 'garden'. You either create a suburb or you create a ghetto. Maybe a combination of one sort or another, like in Chapelford.

Then ask yourself this. Do developers want to build houses with lots of space in between them on the land they own? No. They want to maximise their income and the council wants to maximise its income too.    

So, let's say the council creates a suburb, which is the most likely outcome. You then have 9,000 new homes or whatever, with everybody in cars getting to work and going to the shops, schools, entertainment and social occasions. Can Warrington cope? No.

That's before you consider that this is only a fraction of the total, and before you start looking at the development of Peel Hall, which doe not appear to be part of this plan (?) but which may go ahead anyway. Then you add in the fact that this plan will add -what? - 20 percent or more to the population of the town in the space of 20 years. 

It's complete madness and seems to be about nothing more than the council wanting to become a city council. It's not about what is right for the town. It's about how the council feel s about itself.  

As for the consultation, is it remotely likely that the council will listen to people? This will go ahead and the future for Warrington is as a city that consists of housing estates, business parks and retail parks, flanked on all sides by motorways. There'll be a few parks and paths, but that's it.  


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112

grey-man do you not suspect that there is a lot more to this than just the council 'wanting' to become a city council?

Perhaps CLLR STEVE PARISH will enlighten us by answering the question;

"WHAT IS THE REAL REASON all of you councillors – of all parties – are so desperate to promote the building of multi-thousands of band D housing?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

Sha,

I have alluded to this in respect of South Warrington before. Those houses are the only way of getting sufficient revenue to pay the interest on the roads that need to be built to get us out of the mess we are in because the council did not let the New Town and Cheshire County Council build the Expressways and the new high level bridge. Lurking in the references to the PDO is a new road from Guardian Street to Birchwood Way via Matalan. There is also the new road from Knutsford Road to Parker Street via Brian Bevan Island in there as an indistinct line on the Garden City Plan. Taken together they are as big a change as the Western link to the traffic flows around the town.

FWIW I don't think the City thing is any more than a short hand for getting enlargement. Steve P is correct that City status is irrelevant in planning terms, in fact it is irrelevant in every way and there is no way that building more houses will make it happen. Warrington does not have the regional significance in any field that would justify it being granted letters patent by the Crown, Every year that goes by and the council reduces the significance and attractiveness of the town makes City status go further away. This is an inevitable consequence of where we are, stuck between two major regional centres, as well as the historical and cultural significance of those centres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    232

I can't help thinking that it would be better to develop the town centre as a liveable entity before using any green belt land.Living & leisure in the town centre would put more people in touch with public transport links in & out of town too. That would stop the town becoming a giant polo mint with nothing in the centre. With the advent of home shopping hitting larger store needs  Golden Square could even make a space for a supermarket to serve the needs of town centre dwellers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112

CONFUSED52

The reason the Southern Expressway, the new high level bridge and the Howshoots link didn't get built was because no-one wanted to pay for them!

An additional 20,000 + houses will certainly NOT "get us out of the mess we are in" it will only create a worse mess! and the new roads would not be being built if 20,000+ houses were not being built. 

Are you aware that WBC believe that there is no significant problem on Lumb Brook Road at present and that they believe that our local road network could cope with the proposed additional houses in Appleton without any highways improvements other than a few bus stops?

City Status is irrelevant in general 'planning terms' but the LDP is very relevant and the 'aspirations of WBC for city status' are certainly not irrelevant to their LDP proposals. 

The mass expansion plans are not to support local need, they are to promote growth - to become a 'city'. Otherwise, how does WBC explain to the Government Inspector why the 'housing target' is so far over target!

The Government does not want to be seen as 'the bad guy' (and lose votes) by forcing mass housing development where it is not wanted, so has included in planning guidance the direction that local authorities are to; "set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances".  WBC's 'own approach' is mass expansion. Steve has attempted to make us believe that the Government is forcing this mass expansion upon us.  This is incorrect, it is WBC who are doing that! 

The Government are hoping to get additional housing built by offering extremely generous 'sweeteners' to local authorities. They are providing an 'infrastructure fund' - on top of other 'sweeteners' such as the 'new homes bonus'. The infrastructure fund would pay for the new roads.

So what is the future council tax income from the proposed band D houses so desperately needed for?  I'm waiting for CLLR STEVE PARISH to answer the question. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112
31 minutes ago, Davy51 said:

I can't help thinking that it would be better to develop the town centre as a liveable entity before using any green belt land.Living & leisure in the town centre would put more people in touch with public transport links in & out of town too. That would stop the town becoming a giant polo mint with nothing in the centre. With the advent of home shopping hitting larger store needs  Golden Square could even make a space for a supermarket to serve the needs of town centre dwellers.

I agree Davy51.

A supermarket in Golden square would not only be useful for town centre dwellers, being close to the bus station it would be useful for shoppers using public transport.

But I don't think there will be much effort by WBC to encourage public transport - the massive car parks are too much of a cash cow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    587

Perhaps high rise dwellings (without the cladding of course), could populate and reinvigorate the Town Centre, and provide shelter for the increasing singles demographic ?  AS for house building, more houses (which are of course needed, if they are affordable), no doubt increases the Council's tax take in rates !   As for the question of Green Belt,  are these areas designated "green belt" in the local plan or have they been identified as land for future release ?          :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grey_man    172
11 hours ago, Sha said:

grey-man do you not suspect that there is a lot more to this than just the council 'wanting' to become a city council?

Perhaps CLLR STEVE PARISH will enlighten us by answering the question;

"WHAT IS THE REAL REASON all of you councillors – of all parties – are so desperate to promote the building of multi-thousands of band D housing?”

I have no real idea. They do seem obsessed with the idea and I think it is in some part or large part the reason for this collective insanity. 

There's something seriously wrong at the council though. We're not hearing a lot about the millions of pounds that Live Wire have vanished either, or the council taking control back from their so-called arms length partner. There's no scrutiny of that, the local plan, the hundreds of millions being spent on property investments, the spiralling costs of the town centre development and so on. 

People should be very very worried. 

Is there not a single councillor in the whole of Warrington at least willing to ask in public why the council wants to increase the population by a fifth or more?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    232

Surely any release of green belt has to be influenced by the agricultural needs of the UK post Brexit. In my opinion,every effort should be made by the government of the day to reinstate, where ever possible,  agriculture & domestic food production to levels comparable to before the farming industry had to surrender to the CAP. The days of efficient & productive British farms.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
algy    298

Proposed area affected

I would have thought that the timescale in planning and executing this 'ambitious', and costly project which includes removing the Latchford high level railway bridge and replacing it with a road bridge would take a number of years to complete!.

The modifying of the existing railway embankment to build the new road over the canal will require demolishing many of the existing houses in the locality, I have it on good authority that householders have already received letters informing them that many of their properties would be subject to compulsory purchase orders.

001 - Copy.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    587

I'll ask again: are these areas for proposed development designated "green belt" in the local plan or are they previous New Town acquisitions assigned for future release ?   :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
algy    298

I have no idea whether this is green, brown field or neither Obs, I would have thought that others that have posted such long and detailed replies would have answered you by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112

Confused52

Not sure what you mean when you say "The area within the boundary of the New Town is not Green Belt according to case law."  could you explain please?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112
On ‎21‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 8:38 PM, Davy51 said:

Surely any release of green belt has to be influenced by the agricultural needs of the UK post Brexit. In my opinion,every effort should be made by the government of the day to reinstate, where ever possible,  agriculture & domestic food production to levels comparable to before the farming industry had to surrender to the CAP. The days of efficient & productive British farms.

I think a common sense approach like that Davy51 would be understood by most people but unfortunately not by the 'powers that be'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112

For the most part, the areas outlined for development in South Warrington in the LDP proposals are designated Greenbelt. What you call 'the New Town acquisitions assigned for future release' have no designation on these WBC maps, but as small pockets of green land within greenbelt I doubt they could be treated as other than greenbelt with regard to any proposals to develop them.

Any previous permissions or designations by the New Town are irrelevant to the present proposals.  The New Towns programmes ended years ago and Warrington already reached it's NT growth target so there wouldn't have been any need to release this land anyway.  

 

N.B. The designations in the above map are 'all to cock' anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    587

Think you'll find that the LDP earmarks land in that area for future development, subject to the housing needs figures.  The green belt boundary should be clearly defined, in maps associated with the LDP.       :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
algy    298

"When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's easy to forget the objective of the exercise was to drain the swamp."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112
7 hours ago, observer said:

Think you'll find that the LDP earmarks land in that area for future development, subject to the housing needs figures.  The green belt boundary should be clearly defined, in maps associated with the LDP.       :ph34r:

The green belt boundary isn't clearly defined. The boundary of the ancient woodland isn't even clearly defined - in the above map it's chopped off at both ends! Like I said the designations on the plan are 'all to cock'.

The problem with the present proposals, not just for this area but for the whole town is that 'the 'housing needs figure' has been more than doubled. It doesn't even reflect genuine housing 'need',  Warrington desperately 'needs' genuinely affordable housing / social housing. None of the housing planned for Appleton is genuinely affordable.  As 'affordable' is 80% of market price in the area the so called 'affordable' houses here will start at circa £400K. I don't think there is any real 'need' to sacrifice any green fields anywhere in the town as there is enough brownfield, and land which already has permission but which developers have 'land banked'. With regards to Appleton, there are enough commuter / dormitory estates of 'aspirational' housing and a lack of genuinely affordable and social housing.

Still waiting for CLLR STEVE PARISH to answer my question,

"WHAT IS THE REAL REASON all of you councillors – of all parties – are so desperate to promote the building of multi-thousands of band D housing?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wirerob1    2

Just heard about this whilst walking the dogs - the proposed access expressway appears to go through the Thelwall British Legion and possibly my house - appears the former railway embankment and latchford viaduct will be modified to allow road traffic. As this is right next to my house you think the council would have done a letter drop in our cul-de-sac, warning our houses are at risk from development of the embankment as part on the consultation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    587

Sha, it not rocket science to realise that more houses (especially in the higher tax bands) = more council tax revenue; which is probably the Council's motivation..    Just like, increasing population (immigration) = increasing housing demand.  As for the LDP, whilst the Council may wish to ignore such plans when it's politically expedient to do so, it clearly specifies the green belt, which imo should be protected.  We've got a dead Town Centre, in need of re-populating, the new demand demographic is for single person accommodation, for which high rise flats would be ideal (without the cladding of course!), such provision should prove affordable, especially if we can return to council provision.       :ph34r:   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    232

We keep hearing murmurings of seeking city status & needing to expand the town in order to qualify but there a quite  a few cities with smaller populations than Warrington so is all the house building really necessary ?

Is this city status wanted to provide ,i wonder, more remuneration for the good burghers who run the joint or is the idea a noble one  to give the town more clout in fighting off the future prospect of being devoured by Manchester or Liverpool ? An aid to preserving the town's identity perhaps ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asperity    266

Here's one single person who doesn't want to live in a high rise - cladding or no cladding - thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evil Sid    226

Saw a report the other day that said the price of housing was dropping. Then on the following page was another report from estate agents to say that the number of houses on their books was dropping.

In theory you would expect that if there were fewer houses on the market then the price of houses would rise as there would be more people wanting them.This would then lead to more houses on the market as people decided that they can make a few bob on their current property thus forcing prices down as there then would be too many houses available.

does any of that make sense or do i need a bit more caffeine?

know of a house that has been on the market for over a year, within half a mile of the hospital and the supermarket. within ten minute walking distance of the town centre. sits in a quiet cul de sac with no overlooking houses at the front and parking for at least three cars at the back. well below current market price. yet nobody seems interested in it. probably because it would be a lot of work to turn it into flats so would have to be bought as a home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×