How good is your council...

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

That's really interesting I would have thought your area would be worse than mine for all but the average purchase stuff,, but far from it. The waiting list is bigger and longer in time by considerably bigger here.

A london postcode soon puts local hardship into perspective though.

What are your results lir?:)

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

What are your results lir?:)

closed the page, wage to buy was over 41k I think...and waiting list was over five years can't remember numbers of people, London results were over £110k to buy average in the area and a shorter waiting list, of more people.

lemonjelly

Here's another thing. I am a professional. I have always worked in decent jobs, admittedly they tend to be for charities or public sector. I do not think I am badly paid (I'd like more obviously, but am not dissatisfied with my pay). I have a job which does require a good deal of skill & knowledge, & has its fair share of responsibility.

My earnings are a fair amount short of the levels being posted up on this thread. Now I accept the areas vary, however there is a REAL big disparity going on.

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

In example, type of housing is key. We have an aging population. We really need more bungalows. Yet most councils/ha's won't build these, they are expensive, take up land, & impact on how many units per site we can get. It is alright having loads of properties, providing they are suitable for the people on the waiting list...

or flats with lifts?

robin_banks

lemonjelly wrote: »

In order to make best use of stock, it should be seriously considered. I have seen numerous cases where a family get a really nice rural 3 bed house. Kids grow up & leave, & the 2 adults stay there, as is their current right. It is their home. However as time goes by, one will leave, or pass away, or go into care. The other will stay. So one adult occupies a 3 bed house, whilst families struggle in flats. Something is not right.

There have been times/cases where I have even felt that there should be a right to evict on grounds that the person has to be rehoused.

It's a highly controversial, but probably sensible in the long run, for the very reasons you state.

I was at a housing conference where a director of a large HA advocated that in certain cases paying tenants up to £50k to surrender a tenancy was cost effective.

robin_banks

lostinrates wrote: »

or flats with lifts?

Generally they don't tend to be popular with older folk.

lostinrates

robin_banks wrote: »

Generally they don't tend to be popular with older folk.

I can understand that, but popular isn't so much a valid choice when the alternative is not enough to go round. Bunglows might be ideal for the active retired, but I remmeber my grandparents bungalow with the beautiful garden..that got gradually more and more ragged, and then expensive, as my ''grow your own'' granddad couldn't even cut the grass, a task that then needed to be paid for.

LittleMissAspie

You would have to earn £68,107 per year to afford to buy an average-priced house in your area.

There are 6,897 households on the waiting list for affordable housing in your area – at current letting rates this will take 5.56 years to clear.

Independent experts say your area needs to build 1,927 homes per year. Your council planned for 115 new affordable homes to be provided in your area last year.

Mr_Matey

lemonjelly wrote: »

In order to make best use of stock, it should be seriously considered. I have seen numerous cases where a family get a really nice rural 3 bed house. Kids grow up & leave, & the 2 adults stay there, as is their current right. It is their home. However as time goes by, one will leave, or pass away, or go into care. The other will stay. So one adult occupies a 3 bed house, whilst families struggle in flats. Something is not right.

There have been times/cases where I have even felt that there should be a right to evict on grounds that the person has to be rehoused.

Crazy. It's not their home, it's the state's. This is a welfare benefit.

The state should have the right to reassess their needs should their situation change, and should be able to evict and rehouse people accordingly.

Just as you have to inform unemployment benefits if you get a job, you should have to inform the HA if your situation changes. You should go to the head of the queue to be rehoused if you're to be downsized, and some grievance time allowed if someone has died.

robin_banks

lostinrates wrote: »

I can understand that, but popular isn't so much a valid choice when the alternative is not enough to go round. Bunglows might be ideal for the active retired, but I remmeber my grandparents bungalow with the beautiful garden..that got gradually more and more ragged, and then expensive, as my ''grow your own'' granddad couldn't even cut the grass, a task that then needed to be paid for.

You won't find me disagreeing with you on any of that, and a good point re; 'the active retired'.

Bungalows in London, nah won't happen.