Town’s bid wins £2.23m to fund 100 new homes

Coun David Renard

Coun David Renard

First published in News Swindon Advertiser: Photograph of the Author by , @SwindonAdver007

A MULTI-MILLION pound council housing programme has been given a significant boost thanks to grant funding from the Government.

The Homes and Communities Agency has announced that Swindon Council will receive £2.23m to help build 100 council homes between 2015 and 2018.

The funding announcement followed a successful bid from the council and will kick-start the largest council house building programme for three decades.

It comes after smaller schemes were completed in recent years at Malmesbury Gardens, Marlowe Avenue, Lennox Drive and Beech Avenue.

It is estimated the cost of the building programme will be £18.8m with a mixture of one, two and three-bedroom homes built.

The Government grant will cover 20 per cent of the building costs; the remainder will be funded by borrowing against rental income.

Rents for the new properties will be set at affordable levels (80 per cent of market levels) to make the house building programme financially viable.

The homes will be built at several sites across the borough, subject to planning permission, be built to Code 3 of the Sustainable Homes Standards which will help tenants reduce their utility bills.

The first homes will be finished at Sussex Square from September next year.

Leader of the council, Coun David Renard, said: “This is excellent news for Swindon as it not only helps to address our need for affordable housing, but it also supports economic growth and will create jobs.

“This is the biggest house building programme in Swindon since the 1980s.

“It shows we are committed to investing in our housing stock and providing sustainable homes for people who need them.”

Coun Mark Dempsey (Lab, Walcot and Park North), who is the parliamentary candidate for North Swindon, said: “It is vital that we build more affordable homes and enable people to get a home of their own. The Labour Group in Swindon have already committed to at least 300 new affordable homes being built in Swindon each year.

“The Labour Party have committed government to building 200,000 new affordable homes per year across the country by the end of the next parliament.

“This Government’s announcement of just 33 homes per year is a drop in the ocean compared to the affordable housing that Swindon needs.”

There are just over 8,000 people on the council housing waiting list in Swindon.

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:15am Sat 2 Aug 14

faatmaan says...

but is the council housing list made up of people waiting to jump from private to discounted council housing, yes there should be more affordable housing, but lets be transparent about who and why the applicants entitlement puts them to the top of the list, it is clear from the past few years that certain groups and individuals are able to obtain housing in this sector a lot more easier than those who genuinely applied for assistance and have been pushed backwards down the list by others overstating their numbers , and problem families getting preference at times, why are known drug boltholes allowed to be occupied by convicted offenders ( SBC says it has a policy of removing these people).
but is the council housing list made up of people waiting to jump from private to discounted council housing, yes there should be more affordable housing, but lets be transparent about who and why the applicants entitlement puts them to the top of the list, it is clear from the past few years that certain groups and individuals are able to obtain housing in this sector a lot more easier than those who genuinely applied for assistance and have been pushed backwards down the list by others overstating their numbers , and problem families getting preference at times, why are known drug boltholes allowed to be occupied by convicted offenders ( SBC says it has a policy of removing these people). faatmaan
  • Score: -1

9:26am Sat 2 Aug 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Cost of building programme = £18.8m

Grant = £2.23m

Quote "The Government grant will cover 20 per cent of the building costs; the remainder will be funded by borrowing against rental income. "

Either I'm missing something or someone can't do their maths.... as 2.23m is not 20% of 18.8m....!

If the total cost is 18.8m for 100 homes, then someone is taking the mickey as the average cost of each home is 188k and the largest homes is 3bedroom?
Cost of building programme = £18.8m Grant = £2.23m Quote "The Government grant will cover 20 per cent of the building costs; the remainder will be funded by borrowing against rental income. " Either I'm missing something or someone can't do their maths.... as 2.23m is not 20% of 18.8m....! If the total cost is 18.8m for 100 homes, then someone is taking the mickey as the average cost of each home is 188k and the largest homes is 3bedroom? LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 9

11:43am Sat 2 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

Interesting. The Labour party support mass housing development for council housing and all of a sudden the usual suspects don't have any problem at all with 'sprawl' and the 'destruction of Swindon'.

Quelle surprise.
Interesting. The Labour party support mass housing development for council housing and all of a sudden the usual suspects don't have any problem at all with 'sprawl' and the 'destruction of Swindon'. Quelle surprise. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 4

11:46am Sat 2 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

faatmaan wrote:
but is the council housing list made up of people waiting to jump from private to discounted council housing, yes there should be more affordable housing, but lets be transparent about who and why the applicants entitlement puts them to the top of the list, it is clear from the past few years that certain groups and individuals are able to obtain housing in this sector a lot more easier than those who genuinely applied for assistance and have been pushed backwards down the list by others overstating their numbers , and problem families getting preference at times, why are known drug boltholes allowed to be occupied by convicted offenders ( SBC says it has a policy of removing these people).
Councils rarely 'remove' those people because, legally, some council or another has a duty to rehouse them.

So, even if they are moved out of one area they simply turn up at another and continue as if nothing had ever happened. Some of them even end up in better areas and upgraded housing.

Good to know where our taxes are going.
[quote][p][bold]faatmaan[/bold] wrote: but is the council housing list made up of people waiting to jump from private to discounted council housing, yes there should be more affordable housing, but lets be transparent about who and why the applicants entitlement puts them to the top of the list, it is clear from the past few years that certain groups and individuals are able to obtain housing in this sector a lot more easier than those who genuinely applied for assistance and have been pushed backwards down the list by others overstating their numbers , and problem families getting preference at times, why are known drug boltholes allowed to be occupied by convicted offenders ( SBC says it has a policy of removing these people).[/p][/quote]Councils rarely 'remove' those people because, legally, some council or another has a duty to rehouse them. So, even if they are moved out of one area they simply turn up at another and continue as if nothing had ever happened. Some of them even end up in better areas and upgraded housing. Good to know where our taxes are going. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 5

11:59am Sat 2 Aug 14

LocalBob80 says...

For once I think people would agree with you councillor donachie
For once I think people would agree with you councillor donachie LocalBob80
  • Score: 1

3:55pm Sat 2 Aug 14

trolley dolley says...

All this talk of AFFORDABLE housing is just people speak for cheap council houses.

It is stated in the article that,
"Rents for the new properties will be set at affordable levels (80 per cent of market levels) to make the house building programme financially viable".

Is that saying that Market level rents are not affordable.

That is rubbish, there are many people in private rented accommodation who choose to be there rather that live on a council estate. They pay market level rents.

Council tenants should also pay market level rents and not some soft subsidised rate.

A lot of them are on housing benefit anyway so it would be no hardship, but it would put them in the real world.

I see that the Labour Group have come up with a good idea,
"The Labour Group in Swindon have already committed to at least 300 new affordable homes being built in Swindon each year"

It is good to see that one of the parties has found some money to get things going, or am I missing something..
All this talk of AFFORDABLE housing is just people speak for cheap council houses. It is stated in the article that, "Rents for the new properties will be set at affordable levels (80 per cent of market levels) to make the house building programme financially viable". Is that saying that Market level rents are not affordable. That is rubbish, there are many people in private rented accommodation who choose to be there rather that live on a council estate. They pay market level rents. Council tenants should also pay market level rents and not some soft subsidised rate. A lot of them are on housing benefit anyway so it would be no hardship, but it would put them in the real world. I see that the Labour Group have come up with a good idea, "The Labour Group in Swindon have already committed to at least 300 new affordable homes being built in Swindon each year" It is good to see that one of the parties has found some money to get things going, or am I missing something.. trolley dolley
  • Score: 3

4:10pm Sat 2 Aug 14

LocalBob80 says...

All good points. I see what you're hinting at and I'm sure people will also agree with you again.
This is an excellent opportunity to have a good bash at Labour.
Pity it's stealing the intended glory aspect from David Renard.
Still shouldn't miss an opportunity though
All good points. I see what you're hinting at and I'm sure people will also agree with you again. This is an excellent opportunity to have a good bash at Labour. Pity it's stealing the intended glory aspect from David Renard. Still shouldn't miss an opportunity though LocalBob80
  • Score: 1

7:29pm Sat 2 Aug 14

morris 1 says...

Would like to have a breakdown of how the figure £18.8 million is made up of
Would like to have a breakdown of how the figure £18.8 million is made up of morris 1
  • Score: 2

7:35pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Davey Gravey says...

These homes should go to working families on low wages. Maybe set rent rates at ability to pay? Not the same for all.
These homes should go to working families on low wages. Maybe set rent rates at ability to pay? Not the same for all. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

9:46pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Russell Holland says...

People who are on low incomes may be eligible for housing benefit which will pay for Council or private rent. Because Council rent is cheaper this means that Council housing can mean a reduced housing benefit bill.

For new tenants eligibility for Council housing is based on need.

The real issue is the disparity between incomes and the cost of housing. Council housing is one party of a range of policy measures.

Labour are yet to explain how they are going to fund building more Council houses, particularly given that they campaigned for Council houses to be kept under Council control which meant that tenants are now paying off a debt of £138million.
People who are on low incomes may be eligible for housing benefit which will pay for Council or private rent. Because Council rent is cheaper this means that Council housing can mean a reduced housing benefit bill. For new tenants eligibility for Council housing is based on need. The real issue is the disparity between incomes and the cost of housing. Council housing is one party of a range of policy measures. Labour are yet to explain how they are going to fund building more Council houses, particularly given that they campaigned for Council houses to be kept under Council control which meant that tenants are now paying off a debt of £138million. Russell Holland
  • Score: -18

12:38am Sun 3 Aug 14

morris 1 says...

I was always led to believe that when you were given the keys to a council property this was on a temporary basis, until you could afford to purchase a house of your own. When I first got married I lived with my husbands (ex now) parents and was lucky enough to be given a brand new 3 bedroom council house in Toothill - even though we had no children, that was back in 1979. I now live in a property that I pay a mortgage on, as I thought I was doing the right thing - I think you call it bettering one's self. I can honestly say I wish I still lived in that house, next to nothing rent by today's costs, I am now penalised, by if I had to go into a home to be looked after, I would have to sell my house, where as council tenants do not. I honestly think that tenants should pay rent according to their income. This might free up some more houses to those who are on the waiting lists.
I was always led to believe that when you were given the keys to a council property this was on a temporary basis, until you could afford to purchase a house of your own. When I first got married I lived with my husbands (ex now) parents and was lucky enough to be given a brand new 3 bedroom council house in Toothill - even though we had no children, that was back in 1979. I now live in a property that I pay a mortgage on, as I thought I was doing the right thing - I think you call it bettering one's self. I can honestly say I wish I still lived in that house, next to nothing rent by today's costs, I am now penalised, by if I had to go into a home to be looked after, I would have to sell my house, where as council tenants do not. I honestly think that tenants should pay rent according to their income. This might free up some more houses to those who are on the waiting lists. morris 1
  • Score: 6

10:45am Sun 3 Aug 14

Davidsyrett says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Cost of building programme = £18.8m

Grant = £2.23m

Quote "The Government grant will cover 20 per cent of the building costs; the remainder will be funded by borrowing against rental income. "

Either I'm missing something or someone can't do their maths.... as 2.23m is not 20% of 18.8m....!

If the total cost is 18.8m for 100 homes, then someone is taking the mickey as the average cost of each home is 188k and the largest homes is 3bedroom?
It's not just about the cost of building houses, it's about roads and infrastructure required to go with them.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: Cost of building programme = £18.8m Grant = £2.23m Quote "The Government grant will cover 20 per cent of the building costs; the remainder will be funded by borrowing against rental income. " Either I'm missing something or someone can't do their maths.... as 2.23m is not 20% of 18.8m....! If the total cost is 18.8m for 100 homes, then someone is taking the mickey as the average cost of each home is 188k and the largest homes is 3bedroom?[/p][/quote]It's not just about the cost of building houses, it's about roads and infrastructure required to go with them. Davidsyrett
  • Score: 3

10:55am Sun 3 Aug 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Davidsyrett wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Cost of building programme = £18.8m

Grant = £2.23m

Quote "The Government grant will cover 20 per cent of the building costs; the remainder will be funded by borrowing against rental income. "

Either I'm missing something or someone can't do their maths.... as 2.23m is not 20% of 18.8m....!

If the total cost is 18.8m for 100 homes, then someone is taking the mickey as the average cost of each home is 188k and the largest homes is 3bedroom?
It's not just about the cost of building houses, it's about roads and infrastructure required to go with them.
Those same costs apply to all new builds and should be factored in so my point is still valid; remember that is the average cost and not the cost of the 3 bedroom properties.

Also these types of developments tend to be areas not requiring huge amounts of new infrastructure. Take a look at the locations for the existing schemes.
[quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: Cost of building programme = £18.8m Grant = £2.23m Quote "The Government grant will cover 20 per cent of the building costs; the remainder will be funded by borrowing against rental income. " Either I'm missing something or someone can't do their maths.... as 2.23m is not 20% of 18.8m....! If the total cost is 18.8m for 100 homes, then someone is taking the mickey as the average cost of each home is 188k and the largest homes is 3bedroom?[/p][/quote]It's not just about the cost of building houses, it's about roads and infrastructure required to go with them.[/p][/quote]Those same costs apply to all new builds and should be factored in so my point is still valid; remember that is the average cost and not the cost of the 3 bedroom properties. Also these types of developments tend to be areas not requiring huge amounts of new infrastructure. Take a look at the locations for the existing schemes. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 5

7:41pm Sun 3 Aug 14

MrAngry says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Cost of building programme = £18.8m

Grant = £2.23m

Quote "The Government grant will cover 20 per cent of the building costs; the remainder will be funded by borrowing against rental income. "

Either I'm missing something or someone can't do their maths.... as 2.23m is not 20% of 18.8m....!

If the total cost is 18.8m for 100 homes, then someone is taking the mickey as the average cost of each home is 188k and the largest homes is 3bedroom?
Good point.

Also, the council already owns the land, so this £188k average is just for the houses. Something doesn't add up.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: Cost of building programme = £18.8m Grant = £2.23m Quote "The Government grant will cover 20 per cent of the building costs; the remainder will be funded by borrowing against rental income. " Either I'm missing something or someone can't do their maths.... as 2.23m is not 20% of 18.8m....! If the total cost is 18.8m for 100 homes, then someone is taking the mickey as the average cost of each home is 188k and the largest homes is 3bedroom?[/p][/quote]Good point. Also, the council already owns the land, so this £188k average is just for the houses. Something doesn't add up. MrAngry
  • Score: 11

7:10am Mon 4 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
These homes should go to working families on low wages. Maybe set rent rates at ability to pay? Not the same for all.
Er why? Where is the incentive to work harder, learn more, take responsibility for yourself and your family if you keep this stupid idea that life should be handed to you on a plate? And how the h*ll would you work out who pays what? why bother to work harder and earn more money if your rent then goes up? Sorry that's a stupid unworkable solution and then whats next, your electric and gas is assessed on how much you earn or where you live? We really need to get away from this daft idea that those who do take responsibility should subsidise those who don't. Life is to be lived, go out and live it and earn it and stop expecting it to come to you.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: These homes should go to working families on low wages. Maybe set rent rates at ability to pay? Not the same for all.[/p][/quote]Er why? Where is the incentive to work harder, learn more, take responsibility for yourself and your family if you keep this stupid idea that life should be handed to you on a plate? And how the h*ll would you work out who pays what? why bother to work harder and earn more money if your rent then goes up? Sorry that's a stupid unworkable solution and then whats next, your electric and gas is assessed on how much you earn or where you live? We really need to get away from this daft idea that those who do take responsibility should subsidise those who don't. Life is to be lived, go out and live it and earn it and stop expecting it to come to you. house on the hill
  • Score: 2

8:09am Mon 4 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
These homes should go to working families on low wages. Maybe set rent rates at ability to pay? Not the same for all.
Oh and I forgot to ask. So you don't believe in equality then? Everyone should be treated by who they are and their circumstances? By creating all these "schemes" we perpetuate discrimination and all the problems that brings. What an idiotic ideal you seem to have and as usual no idea of who is going to pay for your endless discriminatory schemes. We need more equality not less!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: These homes should go to working families on low wages. Maybe set rent rates at ability to pay? Not the same for all.[/p][/quote]Oh and I forgot to ask. So you don't believe in equality then? Everyone should be treated by who they are and their circumstances? By creating all these "schemes" we perpetuate discrimination and all the problems that brings. What an idiotic ideal you seem to have and as usual no idea of who is going to pay for your endless discriminatory schemes. We need more equality not less!!!!! house on the hill
  • Score: 1

8:38am Mon 4 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
All this talk of AFFORDABLE housing is just people speak for cheap council houses.

It is stated in the article that,
"Rents for the new properties will be set at affordable levels (80 per cent of market levels) to make the house building programme financially viable".

Is that saying that Market level rents are not affordable.

That is rubbish, there are many people in private rented accommodation who choose to be there rather that live on a council estate. They pay market level rents.

Council tenants should also pay market level rents and not some soft subsidised rate.

A lot of them are on housing benefit anyway so it would be no hardship, but it would put them in the real world.

I see that the Labour Group have come up with a good idea,
"The Labour Group in Swindon have already committed to at least 300 new affordable homes being built in Swindon each year"

It is good to see that one of the parties has found some money to get things going, or am I missing something..
I think we need to look at some realities here.

Lets start with the usual one that everyone here is agreed that those who truly need help should receive it (although there will be differences of opinion on what constitutes real need but that is for another day).

80% of market levels only applies to new build houses. The vast majority of Swindon's council housing is around 50 - 55% of market rents. And don't forget that they operate a 4 "free week" system where the annual rent is paid over 48 weeks and not 52, so the weekly figure quoted is higher than the real amount.

As for setting the rents at market rate, do you have any idea how much that would cost the taxpayer? Housing benefit for council tenants is currently running at around £1/2million a week. Yes you did read that right and that is just council tenants, add on the housing benefit paid to housing associations and for private tenants and that goes up considerably. Add to that the fact that those on HB also get council tax benefit and the bill for Swindon alone is the wrong side of £1million a week!!!! so setting council house rents at market rate would cost around £25million a year for this town alone to the hard working tax payer as most would be almost double what it is now.

And to Russell Holland, council housing is no longer provided on need, it is now done under a bidding system. So people can pick and choose and on numerous occasions those in less need have been successful because those at the to of the list know they can pick and choose and not just take the first one available as happened in the past when they were allocated purely on need. Another one of those ideas that sounds good in theory but in practice doesn't actually work as it it should.

Social housing needs a massive overhaul and fast. It should be a temporary fix for most and only a permanent solution for the very few truly in need. And stop all these stupid "special" housing schemes and subsidies, if we did then house prices would fall back to where they should be so that more can get on the ladder. and the gap between house sizes would also reduce making it easier for people to trade up. We are sometimes our own worst enemies and think short term (usually politically driven) solutions rather than longer term ones that would benefit far more in the end!
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: All this talk of AFFORDABLE housing is just people speak for cheap council houses. It is stated in the article that, "Rents for the new properties will be set at affordable levels (80 per cent of market levels) to make the house building programme financially viable". Is that saying that Market level rents are not affordable. That is rubbish, there are many people in private rented accommodation who choose to be there rather that live on a council estate. They pay market level rents. Council tenants should also pay market level rents and not some soft subsidised rate. A lot of them are on housing benefit anyway so it would be no hardship, but it would put them in the real world. I see that the Labour Group have come up with a good idea, "The Labour Group in Swindon have already committed to at least 300 new affordable homes being built in Swindon each year" It is good to see that one of the parties has found some money to get things going, or am I missing something..[/p][/quote]I think we need to look at some realities here. Lets start with the usual one that everyone here is agreed that those who truly need help should receive it (although there will be differences of opinion on what constitutes real need but that is for another day). 80% of market levels only applies to new build houses. The vast majority of Swindon's council housing is around 50 - 55% of market rents. And don't forget that they operate a 4 "free week" system where the annual rent is paid over 48 weeks and not 52, so the weekly figure quoted is higher than the real amount. As for setting the rents at market rate, do you have any idea how much that would cost the taxpayer? Housing benefit for council tenants is currently running at around £1/2million a week. Yes you did read that right and that is just council tenants, add on the housing benefit paid to housing associations and for private tenants and that goes up considerably. Add to that the fact that those on HB also get council tax benefit and the bill for Swindon alone is the wrong side of £1million a week!!!! so setting council house rents at market rate would cost around £25million a year for this town alone to the hard working tax payer as most would be almost double what it is now. And to Russell Holland, council housing is no longer provided on need, it is now done under a bidding system. So people can pick and choose and on numerous occasions those in less need have been successful because those at the to of the list know they can pick and choose and not just take the first one available as happened in the past when they were allocated purely on need. Another one of those ideas that sounds good in theory but in practice doesn't actually work as it it should. Social housing needs a massive overhaul and fast. It should be a temporary fix for most and only a permanent solution for the very few truly in need. And stop all these stupid "special" housing schemes and subsidies, if we did then house prices would fall back to where they should be so that more can get on the ladder. and the gap between house sizes would also reduce making it easier for people to trade up. We are sometimes our own worst enemies and think short term (usually politically driven) solutions rather than longer term ones that would benefit far more in the end! house on the hill
  • Score: 5

10:06am Mon 4 Aug 14

BeardyBill says...

morris 1 wrote:
I was always led to believe that when you were given the keys to a council property this was on a temporary basis, until you could afford to purchase a house of your own. When I first got married I lived with my husbands (ex now) parents and was lucky enough to be given a brand new 3 bedroom council house in Toothill - even though we had no children, that was back in 1979. I now live in a property that I pay a mortgage on, as I thought I was doing the right thing - I think you call it bettering one's self. I can honestly say I wish I still lived in that house, next to nothing rent by today's costs, I am now penalised, by if I had to go into a home to be looked after, I would have to sell my house, where as council tenants do not. I honestly think that tenants should pay rent according to their income. This might free up some more houses to those who are on the waiting lists.
You really are an idiot. How are you being penalised? You moan about Council tenants paying next to nothing in rent (ie being subsidised by the taxpayer), and then complain that your care home costs would not be subsidised. Inconsistent fool.
[quote][p][bold]morris 1[/bold] wrote: I was always led to believe that when you were given the keys to a council property this was on a temporary basis, until you could afford to purchase a house of your own. When I first got married I lived with my husbands (ex now) parents and was lucky enough to be given a brand new 3 bedroom council house in Toothill - even though we had no children, that was back in 1979. I now live in a property that I pay a mortgage on, as I thought I was doing the right thing - I think you call it bettering one's self. I can honestly say I wish I still lived in that house, next to nothing rent by today's costs, I am now penalised, by if I had to go into a home to be looked after, I would have to sell my house, where as council tenants do not. I honestly think that tenants should pay rent according to their income. This might free up some more houses to those who are on the waiting lists.[/p][/quote]You really are an idiot. How are you being penalised? You moan about Council tenants paying next to nothing in rent (ie being subsidised by the taxpayer), and then complain that your care home costs would not be subsidised. Inconsistent fool. BeardyBill
  • Score: -5

10:12am Mon 4 Aug 14

BeardyBill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
All this talk of AFFORDABLE housing is just people speak for cheap council houses.

It is stated in the article that,
"Rents for the new properties will be set at affordable levels (80 per cent of market levels) to make the house building programme financially viable".

Is that saying that Market level rents are not affordable.

That is rubbish, there are many people in private rented accommodation who choose to be there rather that live on a council estate. They pay market level rents.

Council tenants should also pay market level rents and not some soft subsidised rate.

A lot of them are on housing benefit anyway so it would be no hardship, but it would put them in the real world.

I see that the Labour Group have come up with a good idea,
"The Labour Group in Swindon have already committed to at least 300 new affordable homes being built in Swindon each year"

It is good to see that one of the parties has found some money to get things going, or am I missing something..
And what is wrong with cheap council houses?

If the tenant is claiming housing benefit, then that's less tax money being spent, and if they are not on benefits, the less they pay in rent means the more disposable income they have to spend, boosting the economy.

Looks like a winner all round to me, apart from for the shark private landlords who charge rip-off rents for slum properties.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: All this talk of AFFORDABLE housing is just people speak for cheap council houses. It is stated in the article that, "Rents for the new properties will be set at affordable levels (80 per cent of market levels) to make the house building programme financially viable". Is that saying that Market level rents are not affordable. That is rubbish, there are many people in private rented accommodation who choose to be there rather that live on a council estate. They pay market level rents. Council tenants should also pay market level rents and not some soft subsidised rate. A lot of them are on housing benefit anyway so it would be no hardship, but it would put them in the real world. I see that the Labour Group have come up with a good idea, "The Labour Group in Swindon have already committed to at least 300 new affordable homes being built in Swindon each year" It is good to see that one of the parties has found some money to get things going, or am I missing something..[/p][/quote]And what is wrong with cheap council houses? If the tenant is claiming housing benefit, then that's less tax money being spent, and if they are not on benefits, the less they pay in rent means the more disposable income they have to spend, boosting the economy. Looks like a winner all round to me, apart from for the shark private landlords who charge rip-off rents for slum properties. BeardyBill
  • Score: 0

10:53am Mon 4 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

The government takes money from companies via taxation, which they the use to build council housing and give those who live in them money to spend.

A smaller percentage of that money then finds its way back to the companies who'd handed over the money to the government as taxes in the first place.

A lesson that needs to be learned by all deluded Left-wingers: people being given tax money by the government who then spend it are NOT 'boosting the economy' AT ALL.
The government takes money from companies via taxation, which they the use to build council housing and give those who live in them money to spend. A smaller percentage of that money then finds its way back to the companies who'd handed over the money to the government as taxes in the first place. A lesson that needs to be learned by all deluded Left-wingers: people being given tax money by the government who then spend it are NOT 'boosting the economy' AT ALL. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -1

11:19am Mon 4 Aug 14

Davey Gravey says...

house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
These homes should go to working families on low wages. Maybe set rent rates at ability to pay? Not the same for all.
Er why? Where is the incentive to work harder, learn more, take responsibility for yourself and your family if you keep this stupid idea that life should be handed to you on a plate? And how the h*ll would you work out who pays what? why bother to work harder and earn more money if your rent then goes up? Sorry that's a stupid unworkable solution and then whats next, your electric and gas is assessed on how much you earn or where you live? We really need to get away from this daft idea that those who do take responsibility should subsidise those who don't. Life is to be lived, go out and live it and earn it and stop expecting it to come to you.
What I am saying is rent should be set at ability to pay it. Who are you to say someone on 12 grand a year doesn't work as hard as someone on 40k?
I'd rather someone hard working and on low wages got houses instead of dole dossers.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: These homes should go to working families on low wages. Maybe set rent rates at ability to pay? Not the same for all.[/p][/quote]Er why? Where is the incentive to work harder, learn more, take responsibility for yourself and your family if you keep this stupid idea that life should be handed to you on a plate? And how the h*ll would you work out who pays what? why bother to work harder and earn more money if your rent then goes up? Sorry that's a stupid unworkable solution and then whats next, your electric and gas is assessed on how much you earn or where you live? We really need to get away from this daft idea that those who do take responsibility should subsidise those who don't. Life is to be lived, go out and live it and earn it and stop expecting it to come to you.[/p][/quote]What I am saying is rent should be set at ability to pay it. Who are you to say someone on 12 grand a year doesn't work as hard as someone on 40k? I'd rather someone hard working and on low wages got houses instead of dole dossers. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 4

11:42am Mon 4 Aug 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

BeardyBill wrote:
morris 1 wrote:
I was always led to believe that when you were given the keys to a council property this was on a temporary basis, until you could afford to purchase a house of your own. When I first got married I lived with my husbands (ex now) parents and was lucky enough to be given a brand new 3 bedroom council house in Toothill - even though we had no children, that was back in 1979. I now live in a property that I pay a mortgage on, as I thought I was doing the right thing - I think you call it bettering one's self. I can honestly say I wish I still lived in that house, next to nothing rent by today's costs, I am now penalised, by if I had to go into a home to be looked after, I would have to sell my house, where as council tenants do not. I honestly think that tenants should pay rent according to their income. This might free up some more houses to those who are on the waiting lists.
You really are an idiot. How are you being penalised? You moan about Council tenants paying next to nothing in rent (ie being subsidised by the taxpayer), and then complain that your care home costs would not be subsidised. Inconsistent fool.
Nice childish name calling and personal insults, that really raises the standards of debate on here :)

I think the original poster was pointing out that by doing the right thing and moving to private accommodation once circumstances allowed (thus freeing up accommodation for someone in greater need), they have been penalised twice - firstly by subsidising rents through cheap council rents, and then again though paying for those same people to have subsidised care costs while the private home owner would be forced into selling the home they've worked hard for to pay for it.

I take the point that it's sort of irrelevant how much the rent costs as for the majority of tenants the rest will just be paid for by housing benefit, but that's kind of wrong too don't you think? That's kind of like the triple whammy on the tax payer!

The automatic right to stay in a publicly subsidised or funded property forever has to end. It's totally unfair on those that are paying for it and is completely unsustainable.
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]morris 1[/bold] wrote: I was always led to believe that when you were given the keys to a council property this was on a temporary basis, until you could afford to purchase a house of your own. When I first got married I lived with my husbands (ex now) parents and was lucky enough to be given a brand new 3 bedroom council house in Toothill - even though we had no children, that was back in 1979. I now live in a property that I pay a mortgage on, as I thought I was doing the right thing - I think you call it bettering one's self. I can honestly say I wish I still lived in that house, next to nothing rent by today's costs, I am now penalised, by if I had to go into a home to be looked after, I would have to sell my house, where as council tenants do not. I honestly think that tenants should pay rent according to their income. This might free up some more houses to those who are on the waiting lists.[/p][/quote]You really are an idiot. How are you being penalised? You moan about Council tenants paying next to nothing in rent (ie being subsidised by the taxpayer), and then complain that your care home costs would not be subsidised. Inconsistent fool.[/p][/quote]Nice childish name calling and personal insults, that really raises the standards of debate on here :) I think the original poster was pointing out that by doing the right thing and moving to private accommodation once circumstances allowed (thus freeing up accommodation for someone in greater need), they have been penalised twice - firstly by subsidising rents through cheap council rents, and then again though paying for those same people to have subsidised care costs while the private home owner would be forced into selling the home they've worked hard for to pay for it. I take the point that it's sort of irrelevant how much the rent costs as for the majority of tenants the rest will just be paid for by housing benefit, but that's kind of wrong too don't you think? That's kind of like the triple whammy on the tax payer! The automatic right to stay in a publicly subsidised or funded property forever has to end. It's totally unfair on those that are paying for it and is completely unsustainable. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 4

1:53pm Mon 4 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
These homes should go to working families on low wages. Maybe set rent rates at ability to pay? Not the same for all.
Er why? Where is the incentive to work harder, learn more, take responsibility for yourself and your family if you keep this stupid idea that life should be handed to you on a plate? And how the h*ll would you work out who pays what? why bother to work harder and earn more money if your rent then goes up? Sorry that's a stupid unworkable solution and then whats next, your electric and gas is assessed on how much you earn or where you live? We really need to get away from this daft idea that those who do take responsibility should subsidise those who don't. Life is to be lived, go out and live it and earn it and stop expecting it to come to you.
What I am saying is rent should be set at ability to pay it. Who are you to say someone on 12 grand a year doesn't work as hard as someone on 40k?
I'd rather someone hard working and on low wages got houses instead of dole dossers.
I think that is a totally unfair suggestion that rents be linked to wages, where is the incentive to better yourself if you keep having it handed to you on a plate and how is that going to teach their kids the value of studying hard or of money in general? We already pay income tax and NI on how much we earn and council tax on where we choose to live irrespective of how much we use the services being provided so that the better off subsidise the less well off already, just where do you think it should end? Why should a couple who choose not to have kids or cannot have them and have 2 incomes pay more than a family on one income who have chosen to have kids they clearly cant afford to support? Just what sort of world is it that you live in. Yes help those who genuinely need help, but those who don't have to live by their own choices instead of expecting others to pick up the pieces all the time.

And the working hard argument is stupid too, its about supply and demand and that is why a footballer can earn more in a month or a boxer in one fight than a front line nurse or policeman earns in a 40 year career and isn't going to change. Go and work in social housing for a few years, I guarantee you will have a very different outlook after a few years when you understand the realities of it and how much it actually costs the country and the attitudes of far too many who live in it.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: These homes should go to working families on low wages. Maybe set rent rates at ability to pay? Not the same for all.[/p][/quote]Er why? Where is the incentive to work harder, learn more, take responsibility for yourself and your family if you keep this stupid idea that life should be handed to you on a plate? And how the h*ll would you work out who pays what? why bother to work harder and earn more money if your rent then goes up? Sorry that's a stupid unworkable solution and then whats next, your electric and gas is assessed on how much you earn or where you live? We really need to get away from this daft idea that those who do take responsibility should subsidise those who don't. Life is to be lived, go out and live it and earn it and stop expecting it to come to you.[/p][/quote]What I am saying is rent should be set at ability to pay it. Who are you to say someone on 12 grand a year doesn't work as hard as someone on 40k? I'd rather someone hard working and on low wages got houses instead of dole dossers.[/p][/quote]I think that is a totally unfair suggestion that rents be linked to wages, where is the incentive to better yourself if you keep having it handed to you on a plate and how is that going to teach their kids the value of studying hard or of money in general? We already pay income tax and NI on how much we earn and council tax on where we choose to live irrespective of how much we use the services being provided so that the better off subsidise the less well off already, just where do you think it should end? Why should a couple who choose not to have kids or cannot have them and have 2 incomes pay more than a family on one income who have chosen to have kids they clearly cant afford to support? Just what sort of world is it that you live in. Yes help those who genuinely need help, but those who don't have to live by their own choices instead of expecting others to pick up the pieces all the time. And the working hard argument is stupid too, its about supply and demand and that is why a footballer can earn more in a month or a boxer in one fight than a front line nurse or policeman earns in a 40 year career and isn't going to change. Go and work in social housing for a few years, I guarantee you will have a very different outlook after a few years when you understand the realities of it and how much it actually costs the country and the attitudes of far too many who live in it. house on the hill
  • Score: 5

3:47pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

@house on the hill - some people have never seen the reality of just what goes on. They just think everyone who's poor is a 'hard worker' who's somehow mysteriously been shafted by fate.

I've never really understood why 'hard work' should automatically gain a person wealth. Anyone can work hard in any number of not so pleasant jobs and not get paid very much at all - yet some people seem to think there's a weird kind of nobility in it.

As I was always taught at school, it's about working smarter, not necessarily harder.
@house on the hill - some people have never seen the reality of just what goes on. They just think everyone who's poor is a 'hard worker' who's somehow mysteriously been shafted by fate. I've never really understood why 'hard work' should automatically gain a person wealth. Anyone can work hard in any number of not so pleasant jobs and not get paid very much at all - yet some people seem to think there's a weird kind of nobility in it. As I was always taught at school, it's about working smarter, not necessarily harder. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 2

3:56pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Davey Gravey says...

Capitalism at its worst. No wonder the country is in the mess it is. Greed,greed,greed.
Capitalism at its worst. No wonder the country is in the mess it is. Greed,greed,greed. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -13

5:41pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

It's funny, really - those who are accused of being 'greedy' are usually the ones who are forced, by law, to hand over c.50% of their salaries via higher rate of income tax and NI.

Not really sure how somebody who knows that half of their entire money will be taken from them at source to fund the existence people who do nothing could be considered 'greedy' for striving to educate themselves and acquire the skills necessary to achieve a decent job and salary.

But, then, deluded Left-wingers really don't have much of a clue about reality, or anything else for that matter. They just hate 'the rich', despite it being 'the rich' who actually enable their beloved public sector, welfare, NHS and council housing to exist.
It's funny, really - those who are accused of being 'greedy' are usually the ones who are forced, by law, to hand over c.50% of their salaries via higher rate of income tax and NI. Not really sure how somebody who knows that half of their entire money will be taken from them at source to fund the existence people who do nothing could be considered 'greedy' for striving to educate themselves and acquire the skills necessary to achieve a decent job and salary. But, then, deluded Left-wingers really don't have much of a clue about reality, or anything else for that matter. They just hate 'the rich', despite it being 'the rich' who actually enable their beloved public sector, welfare, NHS and council housing to exist. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 6

7:55pm Mon 4 Aug 14

trolley dolley says...

A simple fact of life is that you cannot have what you cannot afford.

It should apply to everyone, not just tax payers.

There are many things in this life that I would like but they are out of my price range, why should this not apply to all.
A simple fact of life is that you cannot have what you cannot afford. It should apply to everyone, not just tax payers. There are many things in this life that I would like but they are out of my price range, why should this not apply to all. trolley dolley
  • Score: 4

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