Jump to content

Warrington's Housing Market


McBain
 Share

Recommended Posts

exiting from Ellesmere Road onto Chester Road.

 

A rapid accelerating car and sharp reactions...and an element of bravery are required, otherwise you can end up waiting half an hour.

 

So officer... the reason I was driving at high speed and wheel spinning out of the junction of Ellesmere Road / Chester Road, regardless of oncoming traffic, was that at 9.30pm on Sunday 29th June 2008 I read the above post on Warrington Worldwide Forum where I was advised by the above Warrington Borough Councillor that to avoid the usual delays this was my best course of action :D:lol::wink::P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dismayed,

The worrying thing about that site is the entrance and exit.

If they had put it opposite Taylor Street and installed traffic lights, it wouldn't have caused much of a problem. But they ain't doing that. The traffic from the site will have a hell of a job trying to get to town in the rush hour.

 

How short people's memories are :roll: . The original Peel Holdings application did propose to re-use the existing site entrance to the SCA timber yard that is directly opposite Taylor Street, and they also proposed to signal control this junction making it very easy to get in/out of the junction. However, Warrington Council's highway engineers decided that this set-up would lead to unacceptable queue lengths along Chester Road that would interfere with the free-flow of traffic N/S along Chester Road and so demanded that the site entrance be moved 33m North to the position it is now in (as part of the David Wilson Homes scheme).

 

So it's nothing to do with the developer - the site access that has been approved is everything to do with the Council's own engineers :!:

 

As for phasing development - a sensible move really. The developer is covering its bases by limiting its exposure to poor market conditions. If/when the market picks up they will be able to accelerate production in time to catch the bounce on house prices.

 

I like the point about "money-grabbing" - how else are they supposed to make their money :?::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exiting from Ellesmere Road onto Chester Road.

 

A rapid accelerating car and sharp reactions...and an element of bravery are required, otherwise you can end up waiting half an hour.

 

So officer... the reason I was driving at high speed and wheel spinning out of the junction of Ellesmere Road / Chester Road, regardless of oncoming traffic, was that at 9.30pm on Sunday 29th June 2008 I read the above post on Warrington Worldwide Forum where I was advised by the above Warrington Borough Councillor that to avoid the usual delays this was my best course of action :D:lol::wink::P

 

Don't you be grassing on me....I gave you my suggestion in strict confidence...no names no pack drill :D:D:D:wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't quite grasp the concept put forward by Obs regarding the council issuing a CPO against any empty privately owned property to be used to house council and homeless tenants. WHY? if someone has bought a proprty as an investment why should it be assumed that a council can take it away just because they have an inability to provide for their homeless people?

 

If I had the means to buy a house now for my 7 year old for his future; I would do. I wouldn't expect the council to come along and take it away just because I choose not to let it out to twenty Poles and a Latvian... that isn't fair surely?

 

You wouldn't expect the guy who buys a rare old Ferrari or Rolls Royce as an investment to offer it up as a dial a ride car because the council hasn't got enough buses to ship its pensioners to the day care centre would you?

 

Why not go the whole hog and CPO part of a house.... I have a bit of space in my garage and a spare bedroom; would you like to fill all the spare bedrooms in the town with homeless people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple Baz: lots of empty houses/flats (now moving into negative equity anyway) plus a growing number of homeless folk (not least cos they've been evicted for not paying their mortgage) - answer, CPO the empty properties to provide cheap rented homes for the homeless - sorted. :roll: It's a bit like owning a food mountain in Ethiopia; maybe a good investment for the sprog, but if it's distributed it can save lots of other sprogs from starving to death! :lol::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Obs. I think many people who bought off plan and have nose dived into despair due to the financial crash would be delighted to sell their property to the Council, or Housing Association. There are problems though. A lot of empty property are flats - often tiny and frankly not well built, so they would be a poor long term investment for the Council. Plus, lenders won't allow owners to sell if they can't redeem the mortgage - they would rather repossess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does annoy me that the council continue to allow developers to develop whilst also allowing them to hand over more and more flats (sorry appartments :roll: ) as part of the affordable housing quota.

 

Take Walton Locks development.... 250 units.... 48 of which will be affordable (ie rented/private social landlord owned ) ... of these 24 will be houses and the other 24 will be FLATS contained within in 4-5 storey prison blocks :roll:... being built over 5 years remember :wink::shock:

 

Oh and by the way out of the WHOLE WL development 144 of the units will be FLATS :cry: and the houses will be in the region of ?320,000 + :shock::shock: ... Would you buy one :?:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Affordability" supposed to refer to a range of housing types, NOT just "flats". :roll: The Council have been quite pathetic in not insisting on an adequate quota, and on the basis of a vague notion of "affordability. :roll: The main reason for the building of "flats", is demographic; with more folk living a single life. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple Baz: lots of empty houses/flats (now moving into negative equity anyway) plus a growing number of homeless folk (not least cos they've been evicted for not paying their mortgage) - answer, CPO the empty properties to provide cheap rented homes for the homeless - sorted. :roll: It's a bit like owning a food mountain in Ethiopia; maybe a good investment for the sprog, but if it's distributed it can save lots of other sprogs from starving to death! :lol::wink:

So the government just takes anything they don't think you're using 'correctly'?

You've got all those books and you've read most of them, we'll be requisitioning those for the local library.

That TV looks far too big for just the 4 of you, it'll be perfect for the school down the road.

If Baz wanted to rent his house out to people as cheap housing then he would, he doesn't need the government to do it for him. And if he was going to buy a house for his son, I believe he has a 22 year old son that would benefit from it a lot more anyway! :D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dis - that's interesting about the split of affordable housing units on the Walton Lock development. As I recall, in the signed section 106 Agreement there are supposed to be 32 houses and only 16 flats (see page 1 of the Agreement). Has the Council agreed to vary the Agreement to facilitate this poorer mix of units :?: Personally I think it is a complete try-on by David Wilson Homes - such a variation will require a trip back to the planning committee and I doubt that the Council will want more flats than were originally agreed.

 

As for house prices of around ?320,000+ I agree that this is steep - particularly for Latchford West. Yes, it will be a lovely site once developed but that is not worth a premium of ?100,000 or so, particularly in the current economic climate. Still, Barratt Developments (which owns David Wilson Homes) is currently going down the toilet and will soon have to be raising some emergency equity (just like Taylor Wimpey) so I suspect that the developers will have to "get real" with regard to pricing its product or it will go to the wall.

 

Peter T - having stood next to the Ship Canal many a time when a ship has gone past there is NO vibration at all - what are you on about man :?: Are you saying that you don't want to get more freight traffic off the roads :?:

 

I also think that Squirgle has a point - where would the CPO of private property stop :?: What if the LPA decides that your garden is too large and, combined with snippets of other people's gardens, would create the ideal location for a bail hostel. Nowt you can do - it's for the greater good you understand :!:

 

No doubt this will prove fertile ground for the only real winners in any sort of Government intervention, i.e. the Human Rights solicitors and barristers :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it; CPOs are effected at the current "market price" - it could be worse, in China they just bulldoze any houses that are in the way of a major project; assuming of course that an earthquake hasn't done the job for them! :wink: It's totally hypothetical in any event; as no Government has plans to invest in social housing provision, despite rises in the waiting lists. :roll::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dis -

 

Peter T - having stood next to the Ship Canal many a time when a ship has gone past there is NO vibration at all - what are you on about man :?: Are you saying that you don't want to get more freight traffic off the roads :?:

 

Personal experience living in Latchford Without some years ago.

 

 

As for the increase on the canal, I think it's a great idea.

Now lets get more onto Freight trains as well and free up the motorways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some ships are worse than others. Our newest ones are so quiet they probably wouldn't even wake the birds in the trees! :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I am less sensitive to "vibrations" than others :oops:

 

As for CPO, the compensation offered is not at market value because it is always disputed by those who are subject to a CPO. The actual process of getting compensation can take years. Meanwhile - you have lost an asset and don't have any cash, whereas the Council has both your former asset and the money... equitable? Not really.

 

As for donating books, this is something I am going to be doing - I have too many of them now (a consequence of liking to own a book rather than borrowing it for a while).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

See this "confused" Government are planning to offer "help" to folk threatened with repossession IE: shared equity schemes etc; but no matter what equation you try to apply, if their outgoings exceed there income, any "help" will amount to a subsidy, using OUR money. :shock: Plus, if such schemes recreate demand, prices will start to rise again. :roll: Notice the LibDems in Liverpool have taken my advice and are buying up empty properties to rent out - much more rational. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...