Ulverston desperately needs affordable housing for young people to be able to own a house of their own. The numbers that have been built under this scheme in the last five year are less than ten and even many of these have ended up in the hands of people who the scheme was not meant for.
By contrast the numbers of affordable houses that have been built in the same period in Kendal is well over a hundred.
The developers have been squeezing under the regulations that said that developments with ten houses had to have a substantial number of homes that were 'affordable'. Thus they built nine : Taylor's Court and Upper Brook street.
Now we have just given planning approval for 40 retirement apartments at Fairview House, Dalton Gate.
What desturbs me is what the planning officer said:
"Ms Lawson told the meeting that the council normally required such a development to feature an affordable housing element, but said the applicant had indicated that such a condition would not be viable.
Ms Lawson said the overall benefits of the project outweighed that problem."
Thus if a developer states that complying with planning regulations on affordable housing "is not viable"then the Council just waves the regulations.
What chance do we have of ever having a substantial number of affordable houses built.
What seems to be said here is that it's fine for an outside developer to come to Ulverston to make money building houses for well off people from the South who fancy retiring here.
What are the benefits for Ulverstonians?
Retired people aren't big spenders and we have additional people here that will put demands on our services - roads, drains, sewage, police and especially services for the aging: doctors, nursing and hospitals. Then when they can't cope in their houses they will need special care in our care units and assessment units.
Meanwhile young people and those without wealthy parents to get them on the housing ladder have to live in poor housing at a time when jobs will be increasingly scarce.
Is this the kind of Ulverston we want to encourage?
Tell me I'm being pessimistic and there's a bright side.
Or perhaps I've got my facts wrong.
I'd be grateful.
6 comments:
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.
You need to be careful about your snidey little line about most affordable homes being snapped up by people who don't qualify form them for anyway. They are very carefully allocated and the people who live in them might not take too kindly to you castigating them as cheats.
Thank you for providing alternative figures. I shall check these figures again myself and identify why we have different ones. I admit that mine come from an investigation I did a while back. It is good to be challenged. I welcome this as this is how I hope this blog will work.
I stand by my statement that many affordable houses do end up in the wrong hands. Is a check ever made on this in say five years after the affordable houses are set up?
Is our commenter happy about the number of affordable houses that are being made available in Ulverston and the way developers avoided the regulations as in the two developments I mentioned? Could councillors not do more to help our young people find acceptable accommodation in the town - both to buy and to rent.
Why did the Neighbourhood Forum avoid discussing this topic in the town centre but rather choose to raise it at Swarthmore Hall in a winters night as is described on this blog? - press the affordable label.
Anonymous, you clearly have access to SLDC figures.
Would you tell the rest of us where they can be found?
They will certainly be available on the SLDC web site somewhere.
Where?
Furthermore why are you so reluctant to reveal who you are?
You take advantage of being unaccountable for your statements.
This is unfair.
A discussion has developed in the wrong place - Entrepreneurs at the ready -on this topic.
The main point is the statement by Kate Lawson , the planning officer that "the council normally required such a development to feature an affordable housing element, but said the applicant had indicated that such a condition would not be viable."
and that "the overall benefits of the project outweighed the problem"
This statement rings alarm bells with me - and I would have thought many others.
We are of course dependent on the Evening Mail reporter for this quote.
The regulations were waved and I admittedly don't understand the full context but if we are to end up with affordable housing why can't this be incorporated into the proposal.
Surely it is conceivable for there to be a mix of care homes appealing to the elderly and affordable for young.
Surely segregation of different types of people is not a good thing.
We should try in all housing wherever possible to provide a mix of the kind of people living in an area.
Any thoughts on Union Lane development Geoff?? I've objected - on traffic & environmental grounds.
Thanks for your interest.
I'll post my main objections later.
Post a Comment