observer Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Interesting to see the good folk of Lymm objecting to the building of 3 storey "social" housing. With buying a home now out of most folk's league, is this the only chance for youngsters to stay in the communities they were born into? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 And you recon the youngsters you refer to will be able to afford these so called 'social/affordable' homes in Lymm do you Obs ? From what the news page says they are hoping to build 10 of them and they are FOUR bedroom. That family accomodation not young person 'starting out' accomodation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 "Affordable" is not the same as "social", obs. It's a sop by the developers to sell the idea to the planners. Did you read the bit in the article about the fence that was erected (did they need/get plannng permission for that?) and the related comment underneath? Like Diz says, I can't see 4 bed properties ever being classed as affordable to first timers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Did you read the article? What? and allow mere facts to get in the way of his prejudices? Of course he didn't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Meoow! Wasn't aware they were four-bed; but the priciple is, that cheap rented accomodation is needed, IF local communities are to be sustained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 So by that statement you clearly didn't read the news story on the from page today then Obs before you posted your question... the title and first sentence sort of gave it away that they were 4 bed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 OK - so IF they had been starter homes for local youngsters - would the neighbours have welcomed the development? :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Probably not Obs as it's Lymm and it's a field and it would spoil their views Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 ...the priciple is, that cheap rented accomodation is needed, IF local communities are to be sustained I agree, but that isn't what's being proposed here. OK - so IF they had been starter homes for local youngsters - would the neighbours have welcomed the development? Who knows? But when you're down to ifs and maybes, you're starting to sound a bit desperate. Top marks for not yet using the term "nimby" though. Wouldn't have had you down as a staunch supporter of WBC's planning department: life's full of surprises, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Fughtifuno - I'm merely of the opinion that young folk in the outlying villages, should have a chance to live in those "villages". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Of course they should Obs and I agree with you there. Thanks to the main problem of developer greed and of course a lack of jobs or lower paid jobs that just doesn't, and can't, work anymore. Where land is available for new housing you well know that the developers will offer a token proportion of 'affordable' home on the site as part of their 106 agreements to push it though... but they are not affordable. What they mean is they will give over a few 'units' to house those on benefits etc... but the vast majority of homes will still not be 'affordable' to those who want them. Check out righmove as if you were a young person or a couple on a average wage and see if you could afford one or the mortgage and other costs etc, I couldn't that's for sure. If these blummin' greedy developers continue to buy or obtain land and gain approval on the pretence that they are doing the local community a favour and unless the local councils open their eyes and realise that people do need REAL affordable homes and they are not getting them... before we know it there will be nowhere left to build the types of homes that you are on about or what people really need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Of course I know that - but instead of tightening up the planning process even more - this Gov are loosening it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Given that the major cost of building property is the cost of the land, what on earth makes you think that tightening up the regulations (and thereby increasing the cost of land) will lead to affordable housing? The mind boggles! :shock: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 But seeing as everyone is minted in Lymm, couldn't mummy and daddy just pay for little johnnies first house?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 But seeing as everyone is minted in Lymm, couldn't mummy and daddy just pay for little johnnies first house?? What an arrogant generalisation! There are rich and poor in Lymm, the same as everywhere and probably the same number of people badly affected by the recession as elsewhere. I personally know people from Lymm who are struggling to pay their bills, in low paid jobs and having to sell their houses to make ends meet. Certainly not 'minted' as you crudely put it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Oh give me a break.... I was bloody joking SL.... some people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Making a facile remark like that after a number of serious comments about housing didn't read like a joke, more like your frustration that Lymm people live in a nice area and therefore must be rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Well reacting in such a pompous way doesn't read too well either if you ask me.... and as for there being rich and poor people everywhere; I don't recall seeing many rich people in Bewsey or Dallam; but maybe that is just me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Asp - I realise you may be all at sea on land use issues - but it's fairly simples: the more living units for a given footprint = cheaper accomodation; which suggests multi-storey building - even in Lymm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Silly me, there was I thinking we were pulling down high rise slums, not building more of them. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 "Slums" - are a creation of community management, NOT the building. High rise is what N/York is all about - are they all "slums"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Warrington is NOT New York. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 Niether is every other city in the world with sky scrapers -but they're not all slums. :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 It must be nice knowing your never wrong about anything Obs. :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 Being able to see the wood from the trees can be rather frustrating though! 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.