Houses for just £1

ruggedtoast

Anyway, the mere fact that there are streets of empty houses in Stoke surely indicates that Stoke doesnt need more houses. What it probably needs are jobs.

Whereas the South East desperately needs more houses, and isnt going to get any.

Kennyboy66

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Anyway, the mere fact that there are streets of empty houses in Stoke surely indicates that Stoke doesnt need more houses. What it probably needs are jobs.

Whereas the South East desperately needs more houses, and isnt going to get any.

The empty streets of Stoke (and Liverpool, Hull and other places) are from the disasterous aborted "Pathfinder" scheme that Labour started, which was roughly to compulsory purchase, demolish and then rebuild vast swathes of terraced houses at mammoth expense.

This kind of small, cheap, local scheme renews housing stock, provides employment, attracts home owners into areas - I struggle to see any downsides.

neverdespairgirl

You would have to pay me an awful lot to get me to live in Stoke.

Mallotum_X

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Anyway, the mere fact that there are streets of empty houses in Stoke surely indicates that Stoke doesnt need more houses. What it probably needs are jobs.

Whereas the South East desperately needs more houses, and isnt going to get any.

Whilst I agree, there are two obvious solutions.

1, build in SE and demolish i north

2, encourage jobs to relocate.

But as to which is best for the country as a whole is clearly open to debate

grizzly1911

You can buy completed houses for £34999 more in Stoke according to right move.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Stoke-On-Trent.html?maxPrice=50000&minBedrooms=2&maxBedrooms=3&index=70

andy.m_2

Use this scheme and you can save £5k then, and also have a more modernised house.
Win win

wotsthat

andy.m wrote: »

Use this scheme and you can save £5k then, and also have a more modernised house.
Win win

You've got to live there for five years though.

It's really not worth it.

albionrovers

Got to be many loopholes to get around the 5 year clause though.

I just can't think of any right now.

the_flying_pig

sounds a bit daft, really.

600 applicants for 35 houses strongly suggests that they set the price too low. £35 won't even come close to covering the admin costs of setting the giveaway up.

I'm sure that even total wrecks in an area replete with lots of other derelict buildings could have fetched at least a few grand each, maybe lots more.

would it have been so wrong for the scheme to have covered its costs? or even tried to make money that the council could have spent on doing some of the renovations itself, & then letting them out?

ruggedtoast

It looks like a pretty nice area. I guess a lot of local people have a pound.

http://goo.gl/maps/QJdQM