The anonymous commenter recently asserted that I had my facts wrong. I asked him to provide the source of his figures which suggested that proportionately Ulverston had had more built than Kendal.
I'm still waiting.
For my part I've been searching and the figures that I've found bear me out.
Look here at the Local Housing Needs Surveys (updated May 2010) at the bottom
Kendal, population (Wikipedia) 27,505 needs 455
Whereas Ulverston , population (Wiki) 11,200 needs 300
If Ulverston was as well provided for as Kendal proportionately, it would only need 185
Thus, Ulverston is in far greater need of Affordable Housing than Kendal.
If you think of 300 houses that's about four streets full.
Furthermore if you look here you will see that Kendal is to have 23 affordable houses and 40 flats built whilst Ulverston is to have . . . none.
So there's no doubt that we're in need of Affordable Houses and I still maintain that many of those given planning permission at Fairview should have been affordable.
The result would have been a better mix of housing than an all retirement development and just a few of the desperately needed low income houses would have been provided.
It's not surprising that one councillor voiced his concerns Sadly he wasn't an Ulverston Councillor:
"A SOUTH Lakeland councillor has voiced concerns over affordable housing after plans were passed for 40 new retirement apartments in Ulverston.
Coun Phillip Dixon, SLDC’s Liberal Democrat representative for the Kendal Highgate ward, expressed concerns that the region was “only a place for the affluent” after the decision made by SLDC’s Planning Commitee omitted the councils strategy to include affordable housing in new building schemes.
Councillors approved othe outline plans to build 40 retirement apartments at Fair View House, on Daltongate.
However, under SLDC’s core strategy, in all schemes of nine or more dwellings, 35 per cent should be made affordable - unless councillors waive the strategy.
Coun Dixon voiced his concerns after the provision to include 35 per cent of the development as affordable housing was not adhered to."
So what does anon say to that. I'll publish the response if any - just this once!
One wicked thought has occurred to me: What if anon is really Phil Lister having a go at Geoff and he, as a Labour Councillor, doesn't want to be seen as letting developers off the hook from building affordable homes. Let's see what the real Phil Lister has to say.
5 comments:
Frankly I don't trust housing lists. How long a person has to wait for a house is more important. And also, if that person has a place to live in already.
Unfortunately, house prices in the area were pushed up a few years ago when Barrow decided to have a marina. Property dealers from miles away saw their chance to buy while houses were cheap.
Ulverston houses have always been more expensive to buy. And of course, council house purchasing and later selling must have dwindled affordable housing. In actual fact do some people come here to live in rented accommodation just to put their name down on the list? You need to know ALL the facts to make a true assessment.
I know very little about the proposed housing at Fairfield but it seems to me that if it is a 'retirement village' it should keep to that. My parents, in the Nottingham area) knew to their cost (healthwise) that mixing the elderly with younger people in close proximity does not work. (The elderly had the ground floor flats and the younger ones the upper ones. My parents never had any peace, not even when my dad was dying.) The Council reckoned the young would look after the old. My mum couldn't move out quick enough after my dad died.
Don't think that it has always been easy for us. We started married life with three years in a bed-sit. The Council list had us at the bottom. We would have had to have children to move us up. We wanted to wait until we could afford a family.
I am quite concerned about single people on low pay. It seems to me they are in a difficult position starting a home, unless they have a partner to share the cost of housing.
With population expansion, will there ever be enough housing?
Sigh..........
This is why people may prefer to remain anonymous when challenging the truth as you see it. You tell untruths all the time to further your own point of view, except of course when you're changing your posts because you've run into trouble (Gill Barron) or suppressing posts you don't like, or refusing to publish and using the feeble excuse that you don't like the posters anonymity.
Here's what was actually said about Kendal/Ulverston affordable housing builds:
' As is usually the case you have your facts wrong. Since 2006 79 affordable homes have been built in Ulverston and Furness compared to 179 in Kendal and district. Pro rata, in terms of population sizes thats a pretty fair share of the resources'.
Here's what you said was said:
'The anonymous commenter recently asserted that I had my facts wrong. I asked him to provide the source of his figures which suggested that proportionately Ulverston had had more built than Kendal'.
See what you did there? It's all about trust and you don't win much of that do you?
So where can I determine the facts that were quoted?
Re- Gill Barron - I changed because she requested it. The truth was rather brutal. She was getting herself in hot water.
Re affordable housing,you don't provide your sources - I do.
I wonder who's winning people's trust?
I asked someone a few minutes ago how many people trusted their councillors in the town - not many. If it's to get a difficult job done which requires time to pursue policies and effort to have facts at your finger tips - I don't.
If it's getting your photo on the front page lamenting the loss of a service - I do.
There's too much of the "leave it to us, we know what we're doing attitude." "Trust us, we know what is best" they say.
Do I trust the outcome of the TIC - no. We'll be getting cuts of important staff by the back door and we'll have real difficulty fighting it. When we had the opportunity of running it ourselves and being in charge of policy the Ulverston Community Partnership avoided it despite having an overwhelming response of people wanting to pay for it themselves and having 19 volunteers.
I fear that we'll regret the present 'reprieve'.
BTW no more comments from you Mr Anon until you provide your sources of your data. - They're somewhere buried on the SLDC web site. Stop being a lazy daisy.
Then only the one - to be followed by comments with your real name.
Post a Comment