Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dizzy

Green Belt Under Threat - Areal View

Recommended Posts

In the process of selling a house. similar houses in the area (eg the one next door) sold for £115k this house started at £100k was reduced to £90 k for a cash sale that the buyer pulled out of after deciding that they could not afford to spend the cash and found that the mortgage repayments were probably some ridiculous interest rate. then put price down to £80k best offer we have had is £78k.

this is for a two up two down end terrace house in a cul de sac. separate kitchen, central heating, small bathroom/shower room,enough off street parking for three cars or two sixteen seater buses, half a mile from the local hospital. five minutes walk from the nearest supermarket and about three quarters of a mile from the town centre. it is also NOT built on a flood plain either.

prior to our latest offer the estate agent told us that the thing putting people off was the fact it did not have a bath just a shower and that the kitchen would need a bit of work as well. The house was not ready to move in a occupy without about a weeks work at the most on it. Given that one of the first thing people do when moving into a house is rip out and replace the kitchen units i did wonder if the estate agent was joking.

i have been round to a mates house that is one of these new build places and was stunned at the small size of it. one main room  leading onto a kitchen downstairs. two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs. his main room is smaller than the back room in my house. his house was built about thirty odd years ago. the house built today are smaller than that as regards room size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't the houses proposed for the  area in question of the up market variety Asp, & designed more to attract the wealthier purchasers than your average working class house dweller ? As for the brown field sites ,just like yourself ,i don't know of any at present but  I am sure building land will become available in town in the future. Perhaps Winwick Street would benefit for a start instead of having  the negative appearance it has at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dizzy said:

Do I sense a touch or sarcasm there Davy.  Maybe not and I might be making assumptions but in a way you are right in what you say as the new access road/bridge(s) are certainly part of the bigger plans to allow future greenbelt housing development even if the council say they aren't.  It's so obvious as without any new bridges and the road changes (which on paper 'may' show the road infrastructure could cope) they can't possibly be be serious in thinking they can open up and allow permission for all these new housing developments.  It's madness :(

You do indeed detect sarcasm Dizzy but a link would be vital & it would be naive to think that  anyone moving to the area would not be commuting any further than Warrington town centre. You can bet your bottom dollar that  a major selling point would be the motorway links & links especially to Manchester ,Liverpool & Chester. The fact that there are hundreds of jobs in Warrington would probably not be  very high among the estate agents spiel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davy51 said:

Aren't the houses proposed for the  area in question of the up market variety Asp, & designed more to attract the wealthier purchasers than your average working class house dweller ? As for the brown field sites ,just like yourself ,i don't know of any at present but  I am sure building land will become available in town in the future. Perhaps Winwick Street would benefit for a start instead of having  the negative appearance it has at present.

I haven't seen what sort of houses are being proposed so can't comment on that.

There is that plot on Winwick Street that was being developed for something, but whatever it was seems to have been cancelled, but there isn't much other space there for building many properties. Wouldn't town centre properties attract a premium price in any case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the council certainly hope so so they can rake a few bob in to pay for bailing out the bank when that goes belly up.

wonder how much the new ones that are going on the old roller rink site will be advertised for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

waste of time now...they should have actioned a 'Call-In' BEFORE the planning approval decision to was made.:roll:  Muppets !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/10/2017 at 3:05 PM, Evil Sid said:

the council certainly hope so so they can rake a few bob in to pay for bailing out the bank when that goes belly up.

wonder how much the new ones that are going on the old roller rink site will be advertised for.

Is the bank in trouble already??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fugs,

You will find the definition of affordable housing in Annex 2 (Page 50) of the National Planning Policy Framework at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf

The local market rent varies by area and the data is available from the VOA here https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/private-rental-market-summary-statistics-april-2016-to-march-2017 The Lower Quartile figures are used.

The planners have to agree what is affordable for the purposes of each development and how much is needed in total is in the local plan preparation Strategic Housing Market Assessment, it is in the PDO document pack.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Confused, but that's what I was getting at, nobody will put a figure on it. At one of the consultations that Satnam organised, I asked Colin Griffiths what price he considered affordable for this area and his answer was "I haven't got a clue".

How can they determine how many units will be affordable if they don't know what they will cost?

I know developers and planning officers usually reach an agreed number of affordables that should be built for each development, but at some point this is usually revised. I'd be interested if anyone knows of any housing developments where more social/affordable units were delivered than were agreed, but it looks like a one way street to me.

Like obs said, it's social housing the country needs more of, "affordable" might seem satisfactory but there's a high percentage of these that end up in the hands of buy-to-let landlords, exacerbating the problem further: that doesn't happen with social housing. I think even May might have realised this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Togger1 said:

is the bank in trouble already??

Warrington council have a stake in it, what do you think? :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fugs, I think you are going the wrong way to the answer. The council work out what the growth in families is using ONS migration data, it includes UK and international migration. Then they work out how many new jobs will be created here and in nearby boroughs, such as the part of Omega in St Helens. Then they work out how many of those jobs will need new houses ( crystal ball needed for that one) add it all up and that is the demand! Then based on household size distribution being as for the ONS data you can work out how many houses are needed. Next consider incomes and GUESS how many folk will need affordable houses base on income distribution. Right that is how many you need.

Next you look at each development to see how many you can get from a particular development, it will depend on the profits you expect the builder to make and how much Section 106 money you intend to get. The number agreed have to be made affordable by the purchasers of other houses subsidising them if they are for sale and if for rent the homes are subsidised through the HCA who regulated the rented social housing sector by the general taxpayer.

You don't know until detailed planning how many can be afforded. Recently there had to be a reduction in Section 106 monies for bus services at Latchford locks because the prices weren't holding up. I expect that the Council will ask for many more than it needs to allow for attrition of that kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Evil Sid said:

Warrington council have a stake in it, what do you think? :rolleyes:

 

What do I think?  I think you are making  stuff up to be honest😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Togger1 said:

What do I think?  I think you are making  stuff up to be honest😉

This sort of information is all readily available. A start up in the financial services sector has a 58 percent chance of surviving four years. In other words, the council has had a £30 million punt on slightly better than evens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, grey_man said:

This sort of information is all readily available. A start up in the financial services sector has a 58 percent chance of surviving four years. In other words, the council has had a £30 million punt on slightly better than evens. 

Right, so, it isn't failing then ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Togger1 said:

Right, so, it isn't failing then ????

Not as far as I know. I never said it was, just implied that it's not an investment I would make if I had a spare 30 mill down the back of the sofa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Togger1, look at it this way should 30million of UK Tax payers money have been used by WBC as a gambling stake, even if the odds are 3 to 2 on? If the bet fails Warrington Council Taxpayers stump up the interest and capital on that 30 million with the risk remaining for 25 years. The benefit is the bank's rate of return compared with the interest charged by the Public Works loans board, so the gain is just the arbitrage and the cost if it fails is significantly higher. I don't believe that we as council taxpayers should fund WBC's gambling habit, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confused and Greyman, thank you for your wonderfully composed and insightful replies.  Sadly it seems your writing abilities completely outshine your capacity to read.  I never asked about the rights and wrongs of WBC investing in a bank, nor did I question the amounts of said investment.  I simply asked Evil Sid if the bank was already struggling as that was his claim.  Thank you both for your time and I'm sorry it was wasted, unless of course you can answer my question, seeing as you invited yourselves in 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that I suspect none of us are Financial Advisors with indemnity insurance I don't know how you ever thought you would get an answer to the direct question! I was just trying to help you get to reach a view of your own.

Companies House tells us that WBC is a person with significant control that owns between 25 and 50% of the shares in the Bank's ultimate controlling company as of 2nd September and the confirmation statement on the same date shows that WBC hold what appears to be 33% of the Ordinary shares on that date. These are matters of public record E&OE. The bank appears to be trading normally. Reading not so much of a problem as liability!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

Given that I suspect none of us are Financial Advisors with indemnity insurance I don't know how you ever thought you would get an answer to the direct question! I was just trying to help you get to reach a view of your own.

Companies House tells us that WBC is a person with significant control that owns between 25 and 50% of the shares in the Bank's ultimate controlling company as of 2nd September and the confirmation statement on the same date shows that WBC hold what appears to be 33% of the Ordinary shares on that date. These are matters of public record E&OE. The bank appears to be trading normally. Reading not so much of a problem as liability!

 

So, not failing then???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Togger1 said:

Confused and Greyman, thank you for your wonderfully composed and insightful replies.  Sadly it seems your writing abilities completely outshine your capacity to read.  I never asked about the rights and wrongs of WBC investing in a bank, nor did I question the amounts of said investment.  I simply asked Evil Sid if the bank was already struggling as that was his claim.  Thank you both for your time and I'm sorry it was wasted, unless of course you can answer my question, seeing as you invited yourselves in 😄

I wasn't aware we needed to be invited. I'll check with you next time. :P

But before we enter the new regime of you signing off on other people's comments, I'll just say this and take my time about it. You have as much idea about whether the bank is struggling or not as Evil Sid. Given the council's penchant for secrecy, and the fact the venture has just over a 50 percent chance of making it for even four years, all we can say is that the bank is neither alive nor dead. Schroedinger's Bank.

You can't even assume that things are OK because there's no news. As we know from experience, the council is extremely unlikely to admit that the shit has hit the fan, even while they're standing there covered in it. So don't expect the council to admit there's a problem even when the bank is pushing up daisies. My guess is that the first sign things aren't working out will be that the two staff currently occupying a small serviced office in Warrington to make it look like a local investment in some way, will be told they are no longer needed. The fact they are in a serviced office which rents space out by the hour tells you all you need to know about this long term commitment to Warrington and the confidence everybody has in it.  

Don't believe me? Go on the Redwood website and play 'Where's Wally' with the word Warrington. The bank is not showing a great deal of proactivity for a town that has just doled it out to the tune of £30 million.

At least with the bank, we'll know if things go fully awry because the facts will be in the public domain, although the council will just say it's resting. If some of the other investments don't work out, my kids will be the first ones to find out in about 2042. Even then, the ghost of Terry O'Neill will be summoned by seance to blame 'the Government'. 

Whatever its state of play, you can't get away from the fact that the council is out of control with regard to its investments. Hence why it's been downgraded substantially by Moody's. It's not the only council, to be fair to them, which is why so many financial experts, the Public Accounts Committee and the Cabinet Office have expressed so much concern about the use of Public Works Loan Board money to take punts on a mish-mash of projects for which the cash wasn't intended.

Did you know for example that during September alone, WBC borrowed £137 million? This consisted of six loans with durations of between 41 and 46 years at over 2.3 percent interest. It wasn't reported in the local press from what I can see but I know because I write about this kind of thing for a living and don't rely on the council to tell me what it is doing.

Now this may or may not pay off as a way of financing some sound investment, the interest rates from the PWLB are pretty good and I sort of get why they're doing it, but it's an awful chunk of money to have to repay if it doesn't work out.

And that's in just one month and relies on an assumption that Lynton Green and Russ Bowden and their teams are a bunch of criminally overlooked commercially astute demons rather than local government apparatchiks who've stumbled across a suitcase full of somebody else's money at a time they're short of income. And, in the case of Redwood Bank, have decided the best idea is to stick it on Broomhead's Folly in the 3.15 at Kempton. 

The council has refused to say what the money is for but it doesn't appear to be for the Birchwood deal which was confirmed earlier. But maybe it is and maybe some or all of it is for the cost of the town centre development, the budget for which has suddenly become a closely guarded secret. When the council starts withholding information, that's not usually a good sign.

By all accounts, the Treasury is about to put a stop to it in the November budget, or at least the ability of councils to 'invest' outside of their own areas. So the people at the council have till then to stick a load of other people's money on the roulette table.    

Then there's the issue of the council being both a developer and planner, which is a whole extra can of worms that doesn't get talked about nearly enough and yet another one I wasn't invited to open. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Togger1 said:

Greyman, why use one word when a thousand will do the job?  Is it failing , yes or no?  

I never said one way or another. I don't know and neither do you. But I wouldn't bet on it surviving although you are being obliged to. 

A thousand words are needed when things are complex. But thanks for the feedback. And the permission. 

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  

×