Finding an affordable Place to live

The former council offices in St Leonard’s Place, York

The former council offices in St Leonard’s Place, York

First published in Letters by

YOUR editorial of August 20 says the conversion of former council offices in St.Leonard’s Place will do nothing to address York’s needs for affordable homes, but James Alexander claims the developers are keen to meet affordable housing commitments.

So which statement is true?

The current policy requires 20 per cent of the dwellings to be “affordable”, so of the 44 dwellings created at least eight would have to be handed over to a registered social landlord at a price lower than the costs of creating them.

And the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element.

The developers are not making this affordable contribution through choice but of out of necessity.

hey are forced into a housing scheme because the hotel idea has flopped and no one wants offices of that size or type.

What else can they do but residential occupation?

They are then forced to provide affordable housing because if they don’t agree they will not be given planning permission.

It will be a very difficult and costly business to meet all the regulations to convert these listed buildings into homes.

Matthew Laverack, Architect of this parish, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:32pm Sat 23 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

The punitive, discriminatory extortion of affordable (social) housing from private housebuilders using S106 has damaged the housebuilding industry, and is holding back it's recovery

The system imposes excessive taxation on an industry which has been structurally damaged by over-regulation.

Inequality of the system...

Rushbond are only able to meet the affordable requirements because of the high selling prices. The 32 private dwellings with a GDV of c.£24.5m gives average seling prices of c.£750k/ea, with 8 affordable units which will yield no more than c.£500k in total. If the 32 dwellings were much needed small 2/3bed family homes selling for say £175k, that would give a GDV of £5.6m, with the same affordable yield of c.£500k. The point here being that smaller value schemes suffer a dis-proportionate burden, which makes them unviable. Hence, the housing most needed is made unworkable - absolutely BONKERS!

Politicians are blind to this madness, that is why we have a worsening housing crisis.

The solution is obvious - scrap S106 affordable requirements!
The punitive, discriminatory extortion of affordable (social) housing from private housebuilders using S106 has damaged the housebuilding industry, and is holding back it's recovery The system imposes excessive taxation on an industry which has been structurally damaged by over-regulation. Inequality of the system... Rushbond are only able to meet the affordable requirements because of the high selling prices. The 32 private dwellings with a GDV of c.£24.5m gives average seling prices of c.£750k/ea, with 8 affordable units which will yield no more than c.£500k in total. If the 32 dwellings were much needed small 2/3bed family homes selling for say £175k, that would give a GDV of £5.6m, with the same affordable yield of c.£500k. The point here being that smaller value schemes suffer a dis-proportionate burden, which makes them unviable. Hence, the housing most needed is made unworkable - absolutely BONKERS! Politicians are blind to this madness, that is why we have a worsening housing crisis. The solution is obvious - scrap S106 affordable requirements! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -46

3:25pm Sat 23 Aug 14

Seadog says...

"...And the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively affected by the presence of affordable development ..."

Why?

I grew up in the last private house before the council estate began and made no distinction between my friends from my own street or those from the next. We all went to the same school, after all.

I currently live right on the cusp of Heworth (largely private) and Tang Hall (traditionally Council). Believe me: it's not a problem!

What's more, I'm sure it would be even less of a problem if I could afford to live in St Leonard's Place! So what if my immediate neighbour has his rent paid out of Housing Benefit or whathaveyou? It's simply none of my business.
"...And the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively affected by the presence of affordable development ..." Why? I grew up in the last private house before the council estate began and made no distinction between my friends from my own street or those from the next. We all went to the same school, after all. I currently live right on the cusp of Heworth (largely private) and Tang Hall (traditionally Council). Believe me: it's not a problem! What's more, I'm sure it would be even less of a problem if I could afford to live in St Leonard's Place! So what if my immediate neighbour has his rent paid out of Housing Benefit or whathaveyou? It's simply none of my business. Seadog
  • Score: 7

3:25pm Sat 23 Aug 14

Seadog says...

"...And the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively affected by the presence of affordable development ..."

Why?

I grew up in the last private house before the council estate began and made no distinction between my friends from my own street or those from the next. We all went to the same school, after all.

I currently live right on the cusp of Heworth (largely private) and Tang Hall (traditionally Council). Believe me: it's not a problem!

What's more, I'm sure it would be even less of a problem if I could afford to live in St Leonard's Place! So what if my immediate neighbour has his rent paid out of Housing Benefit or whathaveyou? It's simply none of my business.
"...And the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively affected by the presence of affordable development ..." Why? I grew up in the last private house before the council estate began and made no distinction between my friends from my own street or those from the next. We all went to the same school, after all. I currently live right on the cusp of Heworth (largely private) and Tang Hall (traditionally Council). Believe me: it's not a problem! What's more, I'm sure it would be even less of a problem if I could afford to live in St Leonard's Place! So what if my immediate neighbour has his rent paid out of Housing Benefit or whathaveyou? It's simply none of my business. Seadog
  • Score: 3

3:56pm Sat 23 Aug 14

Seadog says...

Apologies for the double post!
Apologies for the double post! Seadog
  • Score: 7

4:34pm Sat 23 Aug 14

julia brica says...

Unfortunately Seadog there are many who have had different experiences living next to social housing.
I would not dream of spending that sort of money on a nice new flat or house knowing that my near neighbours might be my near nightmare neighbours . I mean how do you know until its too late and if they get moved on after a decade of litigation and all the usual claptrap council indifference you just might get another the same . So its far safer not to put yourself in that position. The developers of course know this only too well and they try hard to put a gloss on it but they might fool one or two.
Unfortunately Seadog there are many who have had different experiences living next to social housing. I would not dream of spending that sort of money on a nice new flat or house knowing that my near neighbours might be my near nightmare neighbours . I mean how do you know until its too late and if they get moved on after a decade of litigation and all the usual claptrap council indifference you just might get another the same . So its far safer not to put yourself in that position. The developers of course know this only too well and they try hard to put a gloss on it but they might fool one or two. julia brica
  • Score: -37

4:46pm Sat 23 Aug 14

pedalling paul says...

So are the affordable housing regulation Whitehall ones which CoYC must adhere to, or do Local Authorities have scope to vary according to the perceived needs of each. Someone with greater wisdom than me, please advise........
So are the affordable housing regulation Whitehall ones which CoYC must adhere to, or do Local Authorities have scope to vary according to the perceived needs of each. Someone with greater wisdom than me, please advise........ pedalling paul
  • Score: 21

6:12pm Sat 23 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
The punitive, discriminatory extortion of affordable (social) housing from private housebuilders using S106 has damaged the housebuilding industry, and is holding back it's recovery

The system imposes excessive taxation on an industry which has been structurally damaged by over-regulation.

Inequality of the system...

Rushbond are only able to meet the affordable requirements because of the high selling prices. The 32 private dwellings with a GDV of c.£24.5m gives average seling prices of c.£750k/ea, with 8 affordable units which will yield no more than c.£500k in total. If the 32 dwellings were much needed small 2/3bed family homes selling for say £175k, that would give a GDV of £5.6m, with the same affordable yield of c.£500k. The point here being that smaller value schemes suffer a dis-proportionate burden, which makes them unviable. Hence, the housing most needed is made unworkable - absolutely BONKERS!

Politicians are blind to this madness, that is why we have a worsening housing crisis.

The solution is obvious - scrap S106 affordable requirements!
Yes, and what is to say that prospective buyers will want to buy one of the properties when they find out there is a social housing element to the development?
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: The punitive, discriminatory extortion of affordable (social) housing from private housebuilders using S106 has damaged the housebuilding industry, and is holding back it's recovery The system imposes excessive taxation on an industry which has been structurally damaged by over-regulation. Inequality of the system... Rushbond are only able to meet the affordable requirements because of the high selling prices. The 32 private dwellings with a GDV of c.£24.5m gives average seling prices of c.£750k/ea, with 8 affordable units which will yield no more than c.£500k in total. If the 32 dwellings were much needed small 2/3bed family homes selling for say £175k, that would give a GDV of £5.6m, with the same affordable yield of c.£500k. The point here being that smaller value schemes suffer a dis-proportionate burden, which makes them unviable. Hence, the housing most needed is made unworkable - absolutely BONKERS! Politicians are blind to this madness, that is why we have a worsening housing crisis. The solution is obvious - scrap S106 affordable requirements![/p][/quote]Yes, and what is to say that prospective buyers will want to buy one of the properties when they find out there is a social housing element to the development? notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -34

6:18pm Sat 23 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Seadog wrote:
"...And the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively affected by the presence of affordable development ..."

Why?

I grew up in the last private house before the council estate began and made no distinction between my friends from my own street or those from the next. We all went to the same school, after all.

I currently live right on the cusp of Heworth (largely private) and Tang Hall (traditionally Council). Believe me: it's not a problem!

What's more, I'm sure it would be even less of a problem if I could afford to live in St Leonard's Place! So what if my immediate neighbour has his rent paid out of Housing Benefit or whathaveyou? It's simply none of my business.
I understand where your coming from, I was born and brought up on Tang Hall, lived there for 20 years, but I think the type of client that these properties are aimed at would not have had the same background i.e. council estate upbringing.
[quote][p][bold]Seadog[/bold] wrote: "...And the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively affected by the presence of affordable development ..." Why? I grew up in the last private house before the council estate began and made no distinction between my friends from my own street or those from the next. We all went to the same school, after all. I currently live right on the cusp of Heworth (largely private) and Tang Hall (traditionally Council). Believe me: it's not a problem! What's more, I'm sure it would be even less of a problem if I could afford to live in St Leonard's Place! So what if my immediate neighbour has his rent paid out of Housing Benefit or whathaveyou? It's simply none of my business.[/p][/quote]I understand where your coming from, I was born and brought up on Tang Hall, lived there for 20 years, but I think the type of client that these properties are aimed at would not have had the same background i.e. council estate upbringing. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -28

6:40pm Sat 23 Aug 14

courier46 says...

julia brica wrote:
Unfortunately Seadog there are many who have had different experiences living next to social housing.
I would not dream of spending that sort of money on a nice new flat or house knowing that my near neighbours might be my near nightmare neighbours . I mean how do you know until its too late and if they get moved on after a decade of litigation and all the usual claptrap council indifference you just might get another the same . So its far safer not to put yourself in that position. The developers of course know this only too well and they try hard to put a gloss on it but they might fool one or two.
Agree,we had all sorts of problems from the tenants in the social housing near us, ranging from drunks,drug takers and children who had no respect for anyone or there property.
We have now moved and have never been happier.
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately Seadog there are many who have had different experiences living next to social housing. I would not dream of spending that sort of money on a nice new flat or house knowing that my near neighbours might be my near nightmare neighbours . I mean how do you know until its too late and if they get moved on after a decade of litigation and all the usual claptrap council indifference you just might get another the same . So its far safer not to put yourself in that position. The developers of course know this only too well and they try hard to put a gloss on it but they might fool one or two.[/p][/quote]Agree,we had all sorts of problems from the tenants in the social housing near us, ranging from drunks,drug takers and children who had no respect for anyone or there property. We have now moved and have never been happier. courier46
  • Score: -15

1:33pm Sun 24 Aug 14

Dave Ruddock says...

St Leonard’s Place, is far to little and far to late, The Owners I think know turning it back to housing is a looser, Heavy use of street traffic, Little Parking,, A badly situated building. Badly "Mauled" inside , the area at the rear is a total mismatch of outer buildings. Do the Council or Private sector have plans for the Abandoned Council building at the rear, is the Library /Private sector going to do anything about the 17 Century, 18 Century Stable house at the rear of the Library, the whole area is in need of overhaul.
St Leonard’s Place, is far to little and far to late, The Owners I think know turning it back to housing is a looser, Heavy use of street traffic, Little Parking,, A badly situated building. Badly "Mauled" inside , the area at the rear is a total mismatch of outer buildings. Do the Council or Private sector have plans for the Abandoned Council building at the rear, is the Library /Private sector going to do anything about the 17 Century, 18 Century Stable house at the rear of the Library, the whole area is in need of overhaul. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -4

1:46pm Sun 24 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

Seadog wrote:
"...And the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively affected by the presence of affordable development ..."

Why?

I grew up in the last private house before the council estate began and made no distinction between my friends from my own street or those from the next. We all went to the same school, after all.

I currently live right on the cusp of Heworth (largely private) and Tang Hall (traditionally Council). Believe me: it's not a problem!

What's more, I'm sure it would be even less of a problem if I could afford to live in St Leonard's Place! So what if my immediate neighbour has his rent paid out of Housing Benefit or whathaveyou? It's simply none of my business.
Absolutely. Is Mr Laverack saying those living is proportionally cheaper homes somehow bring the area down? Appalling attitude if so and incorrect.
[quote][p][bold]Seadog[/bold] wrote: "...And the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively affected by the presence of affordable development ..." Why? I grew up in the last private house before the council estate began and made no distinction between my friends from my own street or those from the next. We all went to the same school, after all. I currently live right on the cusp of Heworth (largely private) and Tang Hall (traditionally Council). Believe me: it's not a problem! What's more, I'm sure it would be even less of a problem if I could afford to live in St Leonard's Place! So what if my immediate neighbour has his rent paid out of Housing Benefit or whathaveyou? It's simply none of my business.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. Is Mr Laverack saying those living is proportionally cheaper homes somehow bring the area down? Appalling attitude if so and incorrect. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 46

6:06pm Sun 24 Aug 14

A.P.Feeders says...

The street I used to live down had a mixture of private ownership and rented property but everyone worked so there was no time for anti social behaviour
The street I used to live down had a mixture of private ownership and rented property but everyone worked so there was no time for anti social behaviour A.P.Feeders
  • Score: 11

9:57pm Sun 24 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.
What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 37

6:44am Mon 25 Aug 14

julia brica says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.
I think you must have read some other letter than Mr Laveracks.
He does not advocate anything other than suggest the expense of the project will probably scupper it.
Your take on his letter perfectly spells out your left wing credentials and an ability to twist something to your own liking. It says far more about you than him.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.[/p][/quote]I think you must have read some other letter than Mr Laveracks. He does not advocate anything other than suggest the expense of the project will probably scupper it. Your take on his letter perfectly spells out your left wing credentials and an ability to twist something to your own liking. It says far more about you than him. julia brica
  • Score: -29

9:54am Mon 25 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

julia brica wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.
I think you must have read some other letter than Mr Laveracks.
He does not advocate anything other than suggest the expense of the project will probably scupper it.
Your take on his letter perfectly spells out your left wing credentials and an ability to twist something to your own liking. It says far more about you than him.
As Seadog also highlights above, Mr Laverack suggests (is his words) the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element. To me this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values.
Also, do not presume to know my politics, I make no mention of my voting intentions. Again to quote you, you show 'an ability to twist something to your own liking'. I make my point through what I would call good old fashioned common decency, not politics, which is largely a den for liars and those after their own ends nowadays imho.
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.[/p][/quote]I think you must have read some other letter than Mr Laveracks. He does not advocate anything other than suggest the expense of the project will probably scupper it. Your take on his letter perfectly spells out your left wing credentials and an ability to twist something to your own liking. It says far more about you than him.[/p][/quote]As Seadog also highlights above, Mr Laverack suggests (is his words) the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element. To me this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values. Also, do not presume to know my politics, I make no mention of my voting intentions. Again to quote you, you show 'an ability to twist something to your own liking'. I make my point through what I would call good old fashioned common decency, not politics, which is largely a den for liars and those after their own ends nowadays imho. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 19

11:24am Mon 25 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
julia brica wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote: What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.
I think you must have read some other letter than Mr Laveracks. He does not advocate anything other than suggest the expense of the project will probably scupper it. Your take on his letter perfectly spells out your left wing credentials and an ability to twist something to your own liking. It says far more about you than him.
As Seadog also highlights above, Mr Laverack suggests (is his words) the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element. To me this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values. Also, do not presume to know my politics, I make no mention of my voting intentions. Again to quote you, you show 'an ability to twist something to your own liking'. I make my point through what I would call good old fashioned common decency, not politics, which is largely a den for liars and those after their own ends nowadays imho.
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the point he makes.....the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element......
You say that this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values, well unfortunately CB its true, it would have a negative impact on the development, however much you abore or disagree with the situation.
But just before you jump down my throat, can I say I was born and brought up on a council estate - Tang Hall - lived there for 20 years, the majority of us had respect for our property and our neighbours, but sadly that is not the case today as I see the state of some of the gardens, overgrown, gates hanging off, old white goods just dumped, so in my humble opinion for what it is worth, I agree with his comment.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.[/p][/quote]I think you must have read some other letter than Mr Laveracks. He does not advocate anything other than suggest the expense of the project will probably scupper it. Your take on his letter perfectly spells out your left wing credentials and an ability to twist something to your own liking. It says far more about you than him.[/p][/quote]As Seadog also highlights above, Mr Laverack suggests (is his words) the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element. To me this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values. Also, do not presume to know my politics, I make no mention of my voting intentions. Again to quote you, you show 'an ability to twist something to your own liking'. I make my point through what I would call good old fashioned common decency, not politics, which is largely a den for liars and those after their own ends nowadays imho.[/p][/quote]I think you are putting too much emphasis on the point he makes.....the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element...... You say that this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values, well unfortunately CB its true, it would have a negative impact on the development, however much you abore or disagree with the situation. But just before you jump down my throat, can I say I was born and brought up on a council estate - Tang Hall - lived there for 20 years, the majority of us had respect for our property and our neighbours, but sadly that is not the case today as I see the state of some of the gardens, overgrown, gates hanging off, old white goods just dumped, so in my humble opinion for what it is worth, I agree with his comment. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -23

11:45am Mon 25 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
julia brica wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote: What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.
I think you must have read some other letter than Mr Laveracks. He does not advocate anything other than suggest the expense of the project will probably scupper it. Your take on his letter perfectly spells out your left wing credentials and an ability to twist something to your own liking. It says far more about you than him.
As Seadog also highlights above, Mr Laverack suggests (is his words) the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element. To me this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values. Also, do not presume to know my politics, I make no mention of my voting intentions. Again to quote you, you show 'an ability to twist something to your own liking'. I make my point through what I would call good old fashioned common decency, not politics, which is largely a den for liars and those after their own ends nowadays imho.
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the point he makes.....the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element......
You say that this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values, well unfortunately CB its true, it would have a negative impact on the development, however much you abore or disagree with the situation.
But just before you jump down my throat, can I say I was born and brought up on a council estate - Tang Hall - lived there for 20 years, the majority of us had respect for our property and our neighbours, but sadly that is not the case today as I see the state of some of the gardens, overgrown, gates hanging off, old white goods just dumped, so in my humble opinion for what it is worth, I agree with his comment.
Fair enough. I was brought up similarly, although I don't agree with your generalisation about people today - there are good and not so good in all walks of life. But enough. Good to have differing opinions - will leave it there.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.[/p][/quote]I think you must have read some other letter than Mr Laveracks. He does not advocate anything other than suggest the expense of the project will probably scupper it. Your take on his letter perfectly spells out your left wing credentials and an ability to twist something to your own liking. It says far more about you than him.[/p][/quote]As Seadog also highlights above, Mr Laverack suggests (is his words) the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element. To me this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values. Also, do not presume to know my politics, I make no mention of my voting intentions. Again to quote you, you show 'an ability to twist something to your own liking'. I make my point through what I would call good old fashioned common decency, not politics, which is largely a den for liars and those after their own ends nowadays imho.[/p][/quote]I think you are putting too much emphasis on the point he makes.....the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element...... You say that this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values, well unfortunately CB its true, it would have a negative impact on the development, however much you abore or disagree with the situation. But just before you jump down my throat, can I say I was born and brought up on a council estate - Tang Hall - lived there for 20 years, the majority of us had respect for our property and our neighbours, but sadly that is not the case today as I see the state of some of the gardens, overgrown, gates hanging off, old white goods just dumped, so in my humble opinion for what it is worth, I agree with his comment.[/p][/quote]Fair enough. I was brought up similarly, although I don't agree with your generalisation about people today - there are good and not so good in all walks of life. But enough. Good to have differing opinions - will leave it there. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 29

12:22pm Mon 25 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
julia brica wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote: What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.
I think you must have read some other letter than Mr Laveracks. He does not advocate anything other than suggest the expense of the project will probably scupper it. Your take on his letter perfectly spells out your left wing credentials and an ability to twist something to your own liking. It says far more about you than him.
As Seadog also highlights above, Mr Laverack suggests (is his words) the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element. To me this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values. Also, do not presume to know my politics, I make no mention of my voting intentions. Again to quote you, you show 'an ability to twist something to your own liking'. I make my point through what I would call good old fashioned common decency, not politics, which is largely a den for liars and those after their own ends nowadays imho.
I think you are putting too much emphasis on the point he makes.....the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element......
You say that this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values, well unfortunately CB its true, it would have a negative impact on the development, however much you abore or disagree with the situation.
But just before you jump down my throat, can I say I was born and brought up on a council estate - Tang Hall - lived there for 20 years, the majority of us had respect for our property and our neighbours, but sadly that is not the case today as I see the state of some of the gardens, overgrown, gates hanging off, old white goods just dumped, so in my humble opinion for what it is worth, I agree with his comment.
Fair enough. I was brought up similarly, although I don't agree with your generalisation about people today - there are good and not so good in all walks of life. But enough. Good to have differing opinions - will leave it there.
Cheers CB
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: What would Mr Laverack have us do? Some sort of Apartheid whereby the rich live in a protective compound and anyone earning less then £xm are only allowed in to clean the pool? I feel ill.[/p][/quote]I think you must have read some other letter than Mr Laveracks. He does not advocate anything other than suggest the expense of the project will probably scupper it. Your take on his letter perfectly spells out your left wing credentials and an ability to twist something to your own liking. It says far more about you than him.[/p][/quote]As Seadog also highlights above, Mr Laverack suggests (is his words) the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element. To me this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values. Also, do not presume to know my politics, I make no mention of my voting intentions. Again to quote you, you show 'an ability to twist something to your own liking'. I make my point through what I would call good old fashioned common decency, not politics, which is largely a den for liars and those after their own ends nowadays imho.[/p][/quote]I think you are putting too much emphasis on the point he makes.....the market value of the remaining private dwellings will be negatively impacted by the presence of affordable element...... You say that this reads as him advocating the poorer element of society should be allowed nowhere near the richer, as it 'negatively impacts' property values, well unfortunately CB its true, it would have a negative impact on the development, however much you abore or disagree with the situation. But just before you jump down my throat, can I say I was born and brought up on a council estate - Tang Hall - lived there for 20 years, the majority of us had respect for our property and our neighbours, but sadly that is not the case today as I see the state of some of the gardens, overgrown, gates hanging off, old white goods just dumped, so in my humble opinion for what it is worth, I agree with his comment.[/p][/quote]Fair enough. I was brought up similarly, although I don't agree with your generalisation about people today - there are good and not so good in all walks of life. But enough. Good to have differing opinions - will leave it there.[/p][/quote]Cheers CB notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -31

1:17pm Mon 25 Aug 14

wallman says...

living in tang hall its not the resident's that leave a mess its the people in the buy to let houses that don't care. they know they are only here for a few weeks at a time so why bother
living in tang hall its not the resident's that leave a mess its the people in the buy to let houses that don't care. they know they are only here for a few weeks at a time so why bother wallman
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree