The only news website
dedicated to Lichfield & Burntwood

Inspector tells Lichfield District Council more new homes are needed

Lichfield District Council has been told more new housing is needed.

The comments came from Planning Inspector Bob Yuille who indicated that a further 900 properties would be needed by 2028 on top of the 8,700 included in the local authority’s Local Plan.

The council have been given six months to identify possible locations for the homes.

The Local Plan has already suggested:

  • 450 homes south of Lichfield
  • 750 homes east of Lichfield (north of Streethay)
  • 1,000 homes in Fradley
  • 375 homes on Land East of the Burntwood bypass
  • 1,125 homes east of Rugeley
  • 1,000 homes North of Tamworth
  • 320 homes between rural settlements of Alrewas, Armitage, Fazeley, Shenstone and Whittington
Cllr Ian Pritchard

Cllr Ian Pritchard

Cllr Ian Pritchard, Cabinet Member for Development Services, said: “In relation to housing locations and numbers, the inspector confirmed we have identified the best sites, but that we need to incorporate more homes in our plan before it can be judged as sound overall.

“With regards to housing numbers, the inspector has indicated that we need to make sure at least a further 900 homes are included in our plan between now and 2028.

“He has given us around six months to carry out this work, which will involve identifying potential housing sites, consulting again with local people and organisations and updating the plan to reflect the new homes.”

The Inspector told the council that other areas of the plan – including working well with neighbouring councils when drawing up the document – were sound.

He will report his findings on issues such as biodiversity, renewable energy and employment in the coming months.

“Today’s report represents years of hard work by our teams, a huge amount of community involvement, and contributions from partners, developers and more, and is a great step forward,” added Cllr Pritchard.

“On behalf of the council and the development team I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the development of the plan so far.

“We’ll make further announcements in the coming months about how people can contribute to the next stage of the plan’s development.”

A volunteer wrote this. Say thanks with a coffee.

Advertisements
Founder of LichfieldLive and editor of the site.

93 Comments

  1. Fradley guy

    10th September, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Stop bigging yourselves up for the hard work you’ve put in and build those houses now. We need houses to live in now for 1st time families and bigger properties for growing families who are stuck in tiny box houses.

    All you have done to date is identify sites which is a kid’s job. Start building now and stop putting own lives on hold.

    What a useless bunch LCD and it’s planning committee are. We have house builders waiting on the wings to build the houses we Need now. The longer you take the more us locals move away from this area and most likely never return.

  2. johnthemon

    10th September, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    “All you have done to date is identify sites which is a kid’s job.”

    So build and keep building, let’s see something for it if and when we come out of this recession.

  3. Fradley guy

    10th September, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    John I am unsure if you are supporting or against my post. I am not saying that we should building just for the sake of it. There are many issues we have to consider such as not to build on green belts.

    A development of about 750 to a 1000 home sometime this year or at most early next year will be very much welcome. The last time we build any large scale development within the Lichfield area was over 4 year ago.

    I think a 1000 new homes will do for now.

  4. johnthemon

    11th September, 2013 at 9:19 am

    Trying again to post, posts not coming up.

    @Fradley guy

    I say if it has approval build while there is time. Who knows what the next government may come up with?

  5. Fradley guy

    11th September, 2013 at 11:57 am

    Totally agree John.

    The Rugeley develop is way out for people who live in Lichfield. We need houses build either on the outskirts Lichfiel, Streethay or fradley.

    Give planning permission to build not and stop dragging your chins.

  6. Ashleigh Coleridge

    12th September, 2013 at 12:12 am

    Lichfield has already doubled in size since I was a lad – if we carry on at this rate there’ll be no green space between towns. What we actually need is a sane population policy for England (and I mean England).

  7. Jozef Nakielski

    12th September, 2013 at 12:18 am

    so if you don’t want them on green belt and its a kids job to identify sites, where do you propose that these extra houses go ?
    Brown field and i mean TRULY brown field not for example a green field that was once upon a time 20 yrs ago used to store pit spoil but is now restored farm fields, are extremely difficult to find that are right for development.
    new houses are always nice, nice for the new occupants and nice for the builders. Back in the day I used to do house bashing. Not evryones cup of tea wiring up empty houses but i found it quite satisfying. No furniture to damage, no carpets to pull up, no mess to worry about.
    anyway I digress as usual, yes very hard to find a suitable site where you won’t upset the whole town.
    I must say though that that crescent they built a few years back is beautiful, one of the nicest new builds I’ve ever seen.

  8. Jozef Nakielski

    12th September, 2013 at 12:31 am

    Ashleigh Coleridge thats what you get from building on green belt. you’ll be joined to Tamworth soon. You have to remember that not only is your town expanding but the surrounding towns are. although Lichfield certainly hasn’t doubled, its less than a 25% increase. Lichfield is still small, its only about twice the size of Atherstone, a third the size of Tamworth. It has always amazed me how a city with two stations, and such an extensive system of bypasses and main road is so small and compact. Its rather cute and tidy really. I like Lichfield rather a lot.

  9. johnthemon

    12th September, 2013 at 9:13 am

    It would be very nice if some of this prime building land was set a side for council type houses and not to be sold, in preference to houses for investment purposes.

  10. Jozef Nakielski

    12th September, 2013 at 11:04 am

    don’t be silly John, thats never going to happen, that would be investing in the future of the common people and would never do. It has to be about profit and business John If its not fat cats getting fatter its not worth doing.

  11. johnthemon

    12th September, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    “don’t be silly John, thats never going to happen”

    This is why I would rather eat grass first before I ever voted Tory, they keep getting in though don’t they, and we the underlings keep putting up with it.

    Are you a member of a Trade Union? If not, why not?

    Workers unite, it is too big on your own to fight.

  12. Cynic

    12th September, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    “Are you a member of a Trade Union? If not, why not?”

    I recall when they did a good job and were needed by the plebs – but then they started to strike over the color of the tea etc .You will see how many are in the union freely by how many pay into the Labour pot once they have a choice – even the union seem to be saying only 10 per cent will pay labour!

    It is not a shortage of houses it is too many people .

  13. johnthemon

    12th September, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    ” even the union seem to be saying only 10 per cent will pay labour!”

    Why pay any political party? Political parties should be paying into unions and be grateful to do so. The balance will change when the rank and file get themselves organised, we the people have the real power, didn’t you know that? What do you think we have got a police force for, and a army if needed, forgot the miners strike have you.

  14. Cynic

    12th September, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    “the people have the real power,” – “forgot the miners strike have you.”

    I thought Maggie showed she had the power – the miners lost.

    We are more likely to see the workers realise they are paying too much tax to keep too many at home . More council/affordable homes means the workers will have to pay even more tax!

  15. johnthemon

    12th September, 2013 at 7:29 pm

    “I thought Maggie showed she had the power – the miners lost.”

    Now you know why we have the police force and a army if needed.

  16. Cynic

    12th September, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    “johnthemon” Are you now saying the people or the GOV have the power?

  17. johnthemon

    12th September, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    Cynic. The people have the real power when united, the governments have the police force and the army, and will use it just like Maggie did.

    “Are you a member of a Trade Union? If not, why not?

    Workers unite, it is too big on your own to fight.”

  18. Cynic

    12th September, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    ” when united,” They were during and after the war – then the unions asked for too much – the unions have had their day – just look at their (failing) numbers . This is now the finest country in the world for those who do not want to pull their weight and one of the worst for those willing to work.
    High tax punishes the workers and too much free everything encourages the stay at home. Example – how long to get deposit for a home if you both work and then a millstone for 30yrs – or stay at home do nothing and get a free home.

  19. Jozef Nakielski

    12th September, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    ye maggie made a mistake there running down our mines, privatising the energy industry and falling for all this global warming nonsense. running down your own countries basic infrastructure and selling it off to companies from other countries never promotes growth, its always detrimental to a countries growth. Yet just today we get the announcement that they’re selling off the post office. Last week it was the NHS.
    I can’t be part of a trade union. I got made redundant in January, thanks to this government and famous national parcel company that claims to be employer of the year. 8 months and one phone call is all I’ve got from hundreds of applications. All those qualification and training are worthless now because the last government which was and is useless too bought in part P which stopped me doing electrical work. All those years experience count for nothing no matter what trade union your in I’m afraid. Unions are powerless now.
    anyway I’m caring for my 84 yr old mum now on not much more than dole but at least i don’t have to sign on. I’m still looking for part time work.

  20. Asellus aquaticus

    12th September, 2013 at 11:41 pm

    Maggie fell for this global warming nonsense?

    Seriously?

  21. Jozef Nakielski

    13th September, 2013 at 12:17 am

    may not have been under global warming but that was the death of the home coal fire because they bought in new pollution controls.

  22. Adam

    13th September, 2013 at 7:48 am

    You can’t beat a coal fire. There’s nothing nicer than sitting in front of a real fire on a cold winter night with a good book and a nice drink. Sadly I live in a modern shoebox so I don’t even have a chimney flue but I can dream!

  23. Fradley guy

    13th September, 2013 at 9:51 am

    Guys/ladies,

    Let’s go back to the real discussion here. Who cares at what colour bums sit at Westminster? Building homes is down to local councils now. Brown fields have already been identified in the useless local development plan. The land at fradley is already available and the locals have not objected so what is stopping them to build there.

    The land at shorbutts has also been dragging for long time. Again the locals have not objected.

    A 25% increase is not a lot. Even if the size of Lichfield was to double we should still build. If we don’t where will our kids live. I will promote closer family ties than worry about the size of Lichfield. Our children are having to move away from the area as because of shortage of houses.

    We are forced to live in over crowded homes because there are not many big homes to buy for growing families.

    I appreciatetthe environment concerns but priority should be givenfor better family llife and the chance for a closer family tie.

  24. Jozef Nakielski

    13th September, 2013 at 10:50 am

    But where are you going to build ? A 25% increase is more than one field at shortbutts. I’m not against any development what so ever, I do think it needs to be done carefully and in the right place. I do think accommodation should be spacious, with a good sized garden, and green spaces on the estates. I don’t care much for the governments minimum density. A garden the size of a postage stamp is no good for kids and neither is a park half a mile away. I’d ban ALL back garden infill developments. If you can’t afford to live their then move, don’t sell the garden off to make money.
    Council should be building new homes but they get so little land and so little cash to do it. I seen an article yesterday that Brighton had built some new council housing. ….
    Brighton & Hove City Council has unveiled its first new housing for over 20 years.

    Balchin Court, developed on the site of an outdated sheltered housing scheme in Wellington Road, features 15 new affordable homes, comprising:

    • Three four-bed family houses with gardens.
    • Two fully wheelchair accessible flats with gardens, a two-bed and a one-bed.
    • Five one-bed flats and five two-bed flats.

    All the homes are owned and managed by the council, which contributed land and money to the project. Additional funding was provided by the Homes & Community Agency.

    Housing demand massively outstrips supply in the city, with 17,000 applicants on the waiting list.
    ……
    17,000 thousand applicants, where have they all come from. This development takes 15 people off the list. its a drop in the ocean,. You’ll never ever satisfy demand and we should never try to satisfy such demand because if we did Lichfield would join Tamworth 3.5 miles, Tamworth would join Polesworth less than 0.5 miles. Polesworth already joins Dordon and Dordon joins Grendon. Grendon to Atherstone 0.8 miles, Atherstone to Nuneaton 0.8 miles. Look at a map and zoom in to the very edges of towns and see how close they are to each other.

    Actually Lichfield is very lucky, it has a large amount of green belt. Don’t give developers a free hand to use it ALL up . Be sensible.

  25. Cynic

    13th September, 2013 at 11:41 am

    “I appreciatetthe environment concerns but priority should be givenfor better family llife ” NO NO NO – think about it – new homes fill up with more people that in turn want more homes and so on – it is like a pyramid – it has to stop. Families are for a few years the environment is forever and MUST come first.
    Just because dad has a Rolls does not mean the kids have to have the same car.
    Tell them to move on and get a life of their own. The next thing we will hear is they have to be low cost because there are no jobs to pay for all the houses.
    Alternatively go where there is plenty of land – they are virtually concreting over the south east – do we want that type of problem here – I don’t.
    There are plenty of homes for sale in the paper – buy those before we build new.

  26. johnthemon

    13th September, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    “The next thing we will hear is they have to be low cost because there are no jobs to pay for all the houses.”

    Yes prefabs and shanty towns would do fine, as long as dad can ride around in his Rolls and others can make a profit out of those in need, this is the Tory way of things.

  27. Fradley guy

    13th September, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    A closer family tie will contribute to future generation brought up well and law abiding. If our kids move away how will theyget tthat family support to help bring up their kids properly? With how the economy is now both parents work just to survive and how can they bring up their kids properly with the busy demand of a working life?

    The upbringing of their kids will be affected some a bigger chance of going off the rail and turning to drugs and life of crime. Which all of us in the whole of UK pay for in the long run.

    I am by no means saying build, build and continue building. But we are in desperate need of housing. Start by giving our kids the opportunity in this year or early next year somewhere to live. A 1000 homes in fradley, shortbutt and Streethay will make a massive difference and fill in the shortage hole we find ourselves in.

    Once completed we can then look at other suitable places to buy may 750 in couple of year time. We need to act now.

    Controlling population growth should be a government policy but at local level we should deal witht he currentsit uationwe are faced with and that’s we are in desperate need of housing. Private, social housing and council housing.

    I repeat driving our young ones to seek elsewhere to live is a big drain to our local community and the loss of closer family ties

  28. Cynic

    13th September, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    “Controlling population growth should be a government policy ”

    I can see your point in your above post and it is nice to see what appears to be a close knit family – BUT – it is all of us that have to control our environment – not someone else.It is a merry go round – more dependants =more tax – more subsidized home = more tax – more building = more flooding and shortage of water/food/infrastructure etc -the more tax in effect cause lower wages we have to stop some where.
    I realize some will think it is a few like me saying act now – but soon it will be too late. On the other hand recently we have seen a council offer houses for a pound with so few interested that had to weaken the rules to try and get more apply – I see according to 2012 data west mid have tens of thousands of homes empty and even in Lichfield we see flats etc that have been empty for some time.
    I can see we have to agree to disagree but I do wish you and yours good luck.

  29. Jozef Nakielski

    13th September, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    Talking of shanty towns, did you know that slough sent drones up to do thermal imaging to find out locations of shanty homes in back gardens that weren’t paying any council tax. They say there are tens of thousands of people living in back garden ‘sheds’, some are fitted out as flats with kitchens and bedrooms. Then there are the farms in lincolnshire, all their outbuildings.
    17 thousand on a waiting list. A thousand houses is nothing and will do next to nothing. There’s not even a guarantee that lichfield people will get them. Sorry to be negative about it but its reality. Populations need to be controlled as does immigration.

  30. Jozef Nakielski

    13th September, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    I wouldn’t be building on Streethay, I’d stick to Falklands Road, and opposite on Walsall Road Leamonsley. Opposite beacon park. You could build on the Golf Course !

  31. Jozef Nakielski

    13th September, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    Do you realise the huge amount of land a thousand houses takes ?

  32. BrownhillsBob

    13th September, 2013 at 9:32 pm

    Things are getting worse in the NHS by the day.

    The local secure unit clearly ran out of meds. Please send help.

    Bob

  33. Fradley guy

    14th September, 2013 at 12:30 am

    Yes I do know the amount of land required for 1000. There is land at fradley already planned for 1000 homes. Another near Alrewas and fradley arms.

    Population and immigration control is centre government policy. What should we do at local level? Not build at all?

  34. Jozef Nakielski

    14th September, 2013 at 1:03 am

    1000 shoe boxes more like.
    I don’t know what we should do. I know its hard to believe but I don’t have the answer for everything. I do think though that we should build a modest amount and choose very carefully where we put them rather than putting them anywhere and everywhere trying to satisfy central governments demands. Until they control population and immigration we should dance their dance.

  35. Fradley guy

    14th September, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    I totally agree with shoe boxes. I live in one of those very poorly built. I have recent workdone – tiling, new bath and shower and you wouldn’t believe the poor quality job we revealed.

    We should force them to build better and sizeable rooms and storage. I have no storage in my property.

    I know it is a tough one but we have to build some houses now. How we hope about doing so and forcing the builders at local level to build better houses is another matter.

  36. Cynic

    14th September, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    “How we hope about doing so and forcing the builders at local level to build better houses is another matter.”

    Actually it is quite simple – don’t buy something you do not like.
    This is an example of what I was saying in another post – the Gov say they can build smaller homes and people just buy them. Decide what is best for you and the builders will do as you say.

    We were looking at a “show house” for a friend – they had taken the kitchen door off and standing where the door should be I could touch the three walls.
    The lounge was so small my wife said we would have to put the TV outside!
    In the bed room was a strange built in item – it was floor to ceiling and 9 inch wide and deep – we could not work it out and asked the sales person – “it is the wardrobe” came the reply – apparently you have to fold the coat hanger in half! As we use up the dwindling amount of space we will be taking lessons from some backward countries (we are already using heat seeking camera’s) on where to fit in all those extra people. Only when the shortage ,of land etc ,affects the majority will action be taken and by that time it will be too late.

  37. Cynic

    14th September, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Further to above – some councils are using camera’s to see if people are living in garages etc – you do not have to look far – many in Lichfield use their garage and gardens for other things including living space which we prefer to use codes such as “in fill”.

  38. Lichfield Lass

    15th September, 2013 at 10:12 am

    Before we worry about where to put more houses, perhaps we should be worried about where the infrastructure needed to support all these new homes is going to come from. Lichfield already has a shortage of primary school places, since a new primary school wasn’t built when the Walsall Road development went ahead, and last time I needed an appointment to see a GP I waited three days as they were so busy. So while I’m all for new houses, someone really needs to stop and take a look at the bigger picture!

  39. Pips

    15th September, 2013 at 10:50 am

    I moved here 11 years ago and Lichfield is beginning to lose its appeal to me the bigger it gets. Living on a relatively small housing development I am also acutely aware of the problems they bring. 5 bedroom houses being built with a drive big enough for 1 car therefore residents are parking on the pavements and double parking, anti social behaviour and after 7 years the development is still unadopted with the developers and council at loggerheads. There are a lot of new build houses currently on the market that are not selling. Therefore where is the case for more homes?

  40. Fradley guy

    15th September, 2013 at 11:28 am

    More cases for more and better homes since the ones built in the last 10 years are terrible. We only have Lichfield DistrictcCouncil planning committee and the whole of the council to blame for that.

    They gave planning permission for what was an acceptable design but didn’t not follow them throughb bbecause they are too lazy to do so.

    Greedy profit builders will squeeze and cut corners when no oneis arou ndto nmake sure that the property and design are followed through

  41. Jozef Nakielski

    15th September, 2013 at 11:52 am

    Some great points made there.
    Last time I booked a doctors appointment I had to wait ten days to see my doctor. I could go to open surgery but i’d not see my doctor. Therefore I doubt they’ll class you as needing another surgery in Lichfield.

    The problem is that when you’re suddenly homeless and find yourself in private rented, wasting 650 a month on a shoe box and no way of getting a council or association place at a sensible rent then buying a shoe box seems a less wasteful alternative. You may as well own the shoe box than pay someone else even more than a mortgage to live in the same shoe box. I consider myself very lucky to have a cheap council flat to rent. I’d love to buy but that’s not an option when you’re a carer. The Girlfriend on the other hand is moving in with her parents and saving the money towards a deposit on a shoe box. Hopefully one day we’ll buy a decent sized house

  42. Fradley guy

    15th September, 2013 at 11:58 am

    Citing past mistakes should not deter us for the obvious fact that our famil ies need decent and better houses to live. The council should make proposed health centres, primarily school, play grounds, etc are either built in line withhouses oit even before the first foundation of a new property is but down.

    I repeat the point I made earlier that it is centre government job and policy thatshou ld tackle population add immigration growth but at local level we should deal with the mistakes we have been left with and accommodate our community with better and affordable homes to leave.

    More houses equals to more revenue for the council should can use that extra revenue to expand the services it offers to its community.

    We can go all data discussing mistakes made in the past, that those houses are on the market, lack of school and GPs, bad roads and a lot of other things.

    Whilst we do there there are 000s of the residents of Lichfield living in over crowded houses, 30 or 40 years old still living with family members. Considering living the area altogether away from their families.

    We have to build homes now! At the same time making sure that past mistakesare not repeated. The council can engage local people not only before planning permission is given but throughouttthe whole development stages.

    The exhibitions that builders show us at our local centres fullof beaut iful drawings add layout and promise of high spec buildings for schools and so on is not enough. We should be part of the whole process from start to finish. Ensuring thatwhen the builders have asold their properties and in million of profits we are left with the rubbish they leavebe hind

  43. Fradley guy

    15th September, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    Apologies for the misplaced of my words add spelling errors. I post using a touch phone with predictive texting. So my post. So appreciate that some of my sentence makes absolutely no sense. Haha

  44. Cynic

    15th September, 2013 at 3:04 pm

    “even before the first foundation of a new property is but down.”

    Most people like your idea of utopia – but who will pay?
    Most of the “106” payments are wasted IMO .We can ask for more/higher but it will only come from the house buyer . Just look at your 1000 houses = 2000 kids – 1500 cars – etc – where will the money come from?

  45. Cynic

    15th September, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    “I moved here 11 years ago and Lichfield is beginning to lose its appeal”

    You should have seen/experienced it 50yrs ago – it had a village type atmosphere – the shops knew you by name – they could deliver your goods leave them on the step and they were still there later!!
    Despite the police telling us crime is down now – it was quite nice to go out any night knowing you would have a quiet time at your chosen pub/restaurant.
    Now so many are packed into a small space and we encourage every one to be equal ,even if that means bring all down to a level not up. The kids could play in an open space – now most play INSIDE shops and within a few inches of other people – hence the anti social increase.

  46. Pips

    15th September, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    Cynic I just accidentally voted you down and didn’t mean to. I totally agree with you!

  47. Jozef Nakielski

    15th September, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    I can’t help feeling that the more you build the more central government will do nothing though.

  48. Cynic

    16th September, 2013 at 12:08 am

    Pips – no problem but I wish the other one that gave a red mark would tell us which part he thinks is false.

  49. Cynic

    16th September, 2013 at 1:33 am

    I thought the debate was going so well with people putting their different points of view then we have a flurry of red marks without comment.
    Pity they seem unable to compile a reply.

  50. Fradley guy

    16th September, 2013 at 10:30 am

    Cynic. Just ignore them. I am sure it’s just people passing through and have no interest to hold to move forward our local community.

    I just hope that high management from Lichfield council are reading what is a very good debate we arehav ing here.

    Appreciate we all have very different views nevertheless everyone who has posted here has made very good points that tthe council can learn from.

  51. Jozef Nakielski

    18th September, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Housebuilders and councils in Britain’s biggest cities are failing to comply with affordable housing targets, and even ripping up legal commitments to build cheaper homes. A three-month study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism for Society Guardian has established that 60% of the biggest housing developments currently in the planning system are falling short of local affordable housing targets, preventing thousands of cheaper homes being built.

    The investigation reveals huge cuts to the proportion of affordable housing in one of the largest housing projects and how none of Birmingham’s biggest housing developments meet its 35% affordable housing target. Separately, the investigation also shows how financial viability assessments on behalf of a leading housebuilder repeatedly persuaded councils that having larger affordable housing quotas would make schemes uneconomic.

    Affordable housing includes social, rented and shared ownership for specified eligible households that can’t afford to buy or rent on the open market.

    The bureau’s assessment of 82 of the biggest housing developments in 10 major cities found just 40% complied with local affordable housing targets. Other than Birmingham, the cities where at least 50% of housing schemes failed to meet local affordable housing targets were Bristol, Bradford, Cardiff, Manchester and Sheffield.

  52. Cynic

    18th September, 2013 at 11:55 pm

    Is it possible that they do not want to build “affordable” houses because no one wants to buy an expensive house next door to six kids that have no one in their life that has ever worked?

  53. Jozef Nakielski

    19th September, 2013 at 12:22 am

    Ah well, that’s a good point. Did you know that developers can choose not to include social housing in their development and can instead choose to build them on another estate, or create a separate estate on the same piece of land, a separate close. They can also buy their way out and put the money into something else. A local authority building them for them.

  54. johnthemon

    19th September, 2013 at 10:11 am

    “or create a separate estate on the same piece of land, a separate close.”

    Yes ghettos, just up the Tories street, as long as it is not up their street.

  55. Jozef Nakielski

    19th September, 2013 at 10:22 am

    well that depends on how the residents and council look after them doesn’t it. It depends who they give them to. Its a choice of a mixed estate or exclusive estates. Its got to be one or the other. Although by that article it seems not.

  56. Cynic

    19th September, 2013 at 10:32 am

    “Yes ghettos, just up the Tories street”

    Why would a group of new houses with nice new tenants become a ghetto?

  57. Jozef Nakielski

    19th September, 2013 at 10:56 am

    cos one of them isn’t a nice tenant ? someone who can work but won’t work cos they have 6 kids and shows no respect to others that do work, that doesn’t keep the garden tidy ?

  58. Cynic

    19th September, 2013 at 11:22 am

    “them isn’t a nice tenant ”

    One bad apple etc – my point entirely – but at least keep them all together.

  59. Jozef Nakielski

    19th September, 2013 at 11:42 am

    As a council tenant I agree, we wouldn’t wanna mix with such people that own their own homes, God forbid we sink that low !

  60. johnthemon

    19th September, 2013 at 11:53 am

    “but at least keep them all together.”

    “next door to six kids that have no one in their life that has ever worked?”

    And who do we blame for this, that these people have not been as fortunate as you? Better still what is going to be done to help them.

  61. Cynic

    19th September, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    “what is going to be done to help them.” We should start teaching/training them NOT to have kids they can not afford .Teach the parent what is right and wrong so they can teach their kids to behave. NOT reward them with assets and money a lot of workers will never get.

  62. Cynic

    19th September, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    “As a council tenant I agree” I am glad we agree (LOL).

    Here is an idea – when the housing ass has a new tranche of houses give their very best tenants a chance to move into them – those that live next to ASBO type will be glad to move – then the next ASBO type goes to live near their own kind.

  63. johnthemon

    19th September, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    “Teach the parent what is right and wrong so they can teach their kids to behave.”

    So segregation and not making them feel part of the community is the way forward and how to “behave” then, according to you?

  64. Dee Green

    19th September, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    Just because someone lives in a Council house does not mean they are on the dole, have never worked, don’t know when to stop having kids or are uneducated. I know of a very well educated (to degree level), well spoken lady who came from a poor background in the first place, married a poor person, who then left her and when she died, she was still living in Council accommodation. Please don’t tar all of these people with the same brush. I would have loved to have had a neighbour like her. I don’t know how young people can afford to get onto the housing ladder in the first place nowadays, with low wages and high property prices – it doesn’t mean these people are badly behaved!

  65. Cynic

    19th September, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    “So segregation” In short telling them – This is what you get for acquiring an ASBO – YES . The alternative seems to be – ruin a lot of peoples life as some can not even go home to get away from it.

    There are lots of nice well behaved tenants but having undesirables living along side of nice people lowers the tone of an area. If you have dealt with anything connected with addresses you would know as soon as you say you are from XXXXX they tar you with the same brush – only a few bad eggs live in “Little Beirut” but they have given it a bad name. Drive along the road and you will see the houses that are valued by the house holder and those that could not care less.

  66. Jozef Nakielski

    20th September, 2013 at 2:12 am

    councils tend to put such people all in one place. It ruins it of course for the decent people that live there. I’m not sure that I agree with it as I’ve seen two roads turned into slums. One of which used to be a very nice New build Housing association estate.
    Such families need spreading out and taught and helped how to behave. It would help if they had jobs money. It would help if the councils forced them to look after their property and didn’t let it turn into a slum.
    It isn’t just them that are guilty of causing the situation. The councils and associations let it happen.
    Of course some will never help themselves. That isn’t a reason others should suffer though.

  67. johnthemon

    20th September, 2013 at 9:46 am

  68. Jozef Nakielski

    20th September, 2013 at 10:34 am

    yes I know I’m a member of the anti bedroom tax natter group on face book. That bedroom tax along with the ATOS shambles and HS2 will lose the cause this government to lose the election. If they want to win they need a new leader. Mind you that puts them on equal footing with labour cos they need a new one too. Wouldn’t it be weird if everyone just voted libdem and they actually got in on their own.
    Haven’t got much of a choice really have we, they’ve all let us down in one or another. I don’t want any of them as they are.

  69. Cynic

    20th September, 2013 at 11:10 am

    “Such families need spreading out ” And ruin it for more nice/well behaved families – together they are with like minded people .

    There is no such thing as a “bed room” tax .Reducing hand outs is not a tax.
    We are paying out too much and it has to be reduced – we can not carry on paying for large houses with spare capacity while people need more rooms – mainly needed by the very people we are discussing with too many kids!

  70. Jozef Nakielski

    20th September, 2013 at 11:36 am

    A mother who has lost her child in a house fire is now having her benefit reduced because his room is ‘spare’

    People that were lucky enough to get a three bedroom house for their boy and girl to have a room each should now down size because they can share a room. Only to have to up size in a few years when they can no longer share a room. Carpets, curtains, beds, wardrobes all need to be bought when they have to move again. These are families who can’t afford to buy.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-50000-people-are-now-facing-eviction-after-bedroom-tax-8825074.html

    Then there are the families who’s children are away working. Parents who have a room for their weekend visits. People who need a room for a carer.
    Just because its a council property (it doesn’t affect private rented) doesn’t mean a family has no rights to stability, no rights to be able to furnish a home as they please for fear that they’ll have to move in six months. It’s supposed to be a secure tenancy.

    Its achieved NOTHING apart from deny councils of their rent and put local councils which i have every sympathy for in the horrible position of having to evict these people. And there where do they go.
    The only loser here is you, us, locals, because that’s where the money will be lost from.
    Its displaced people from their life long family homes, freed up very few homes so therefore not increased capacity and as a result has pushed up demand for one bed places, has pushed up demand for private rented. Landlords are loving it.

    I’m lucky I’ve had this pace for years. I’d stand no chance of getting a place now. I feel sorry for our young, they’ll never be able to live on their own. Their only chance is to go straight from home to live with a partner.

  71. Jozef Nakielski

    20th September, 2013 at 11:38 am

    Together it creates a slum, and if there’s one or two decent families that can’t find anywhere else to move to they have to be surrounded by bad tenants. Together its like a mini prison, all teaching each other bad stuff, where to go thieving, how, they get in packs. Not good. They need good people around them to set a good example not bad to set a bad example.

  72. Jozef Nakielski

    20th September, 2013 at 11:43 am

    I think the council tax should go up by 25% on private rented and owned homes for every spare room in them. Tis EXACTLY the same principle and when put like that it may make home owners realise whats happening . it IS a tax, its disguised as a benefit reduction. People who can’t afford to move. People who need stability to be able to start moving up the ladder and off benefits.

    I bet you’re one of these that think all people on benefits are spongers.

  73. johnthemon

    20th September, 2013 at 11:49 am

    ” mainly needed by the very people we are discussing with too many kids!”

    We cannot blame the children for this, and it is our reasonability to see they have a fair chance and start in life, if not we have failed. So build houses to accommodate these families at the prices and rents they can afford, in other words lets get our priorities right. I am all right Jack attitude is a very selfish attitude, and just masking over the problem.

  74. Cynic

    20th September, 2013 at 11:53 am

    ” if there’s one or two decent families that can’t find anywhere else”

    I have already covered that – the nice families get the new houses.

    “Then there are the families who’s children are away working” Those working can afford the few pound to cover the cost of their B&B at moms.

    I have heard about the arrears – are any of those people paying for luxuries like TV / cigarettes/ mobile phone etc because all those are being paid for by the tax payer and paying rent should be the first thing you pay.

  75. Cynic

    20th September, 2013 at 11:58 am

    ” So build houses to accommodate these families at the prices and rents they can afford,” We are but we are also paying people to live in houses which they LIKE but do not NEED. It is easier to get a home by NOT working than it is for the youngsters who do work.We can not afford it – but you tell me if we are not to cut back – who is going to pay the massive social bill?

  76. Cynic

    20th September, 2013 at 12:08 pm

    “I think the council tax should go up by 25%” Very few people pay council tax .

    Tax overall is already too high that’s one of the reasons the young people are staying at home.

  77. Jozef Nakielski

    21st September, 2013 at 12:21 am

    so why is it that you agree with tax on a council house going up by 25% if a room is empty but not tax on a private rented or owned if rooms are empty ?
    If people in council rented are forced to down size every time they lose their job the so should everyone else

  78. Jozef Nakielski

    21st September, 2013 at 12:24 am

    you can claim it isn’t a tax all you like but a benefit reduction means that they have ti find that money from elsewhere just like a tax.

  79. Cynic

    21st September, 2013 at 1:09 am

    “so why is it that you agree with tax on a council house going up by 25% if a room is empty but not tax on a private rented or owned if rooms are empty ?”

    What tax?

    The tax we pay is paid out to help people in need not for luxuries. We should not expect people on less than £10K to pay tax to fund more rooms than a person needs and the idea we fund rooms by taxing people on such low income just so relatives can stay free is ludicrous!

    A lot of folk do downsize when they no longer need a big house but when you pay for it you can decide how to spend your money when you are holding out your hand you should not expect more than is necessary.
    I do understand people that get free anything do not like the idea of getting less than they are used too but TRY if you can step back and look at the big picture .You do understand we can not afford the high cost of hand outs or do you think there is a money tree?

  80. Jozef Nakielski

    21st September, 2013 at 1:59 am

    Its a tax, no matter what you claim its still a tax. No matter how its presented it’s still a tax. Its taking money off someone because they have something. That’s a tax.
    So you really think that I should downsize because I lost my job through redundancy , have a three bedroom house and have 8 and 9 yr old girl and boy that the government say can share, then next year go on a waiting list for a three bedroom house because they’ve turned 10 and can no longer share, which will take years.

    You talk about it as if council house tenants are free loaders, as if people who lose their jobs are dole dossing sponging free loaders that aren’t entitled to benefits or full rent if they happen to have different sexes under 10 and the council gave them a three bed.

    you talk about a council house as if IS ITSELF a benefit, that people aren’t entitled to a secure tenancy and years of living in the same house through good and bad times so that they furnish it, carpet it, buy curtains. Every time you move you have to re carpet the place. carpets rarely fit, neither do curtains.

    The idea is ridiculous, and the only people that support are a limited amount of conservatives. Which is a shame because those limited few are going to lose them the election. Bedroom tax, Atos and HS2 are highly unpopular and the protestors aren’t going to go away.

    As i said if its a luxury for someone in a council house to have a bedroom for each child then it is for owners too. Tax everyone on every spare bedroom. why target unemployed people in council accommodation only if its supposed to be about getting rid of unused bedrooms. They won’t because it’s a lie that its about that. It is a reduction in benefits for unemployed in council accommodation, it’s a tax.

  81. Jozef Nakielski

    21st September, 2013 at 2:14 am

    I’d tax you now on all of your bedrooms cynic 25% for the one you use and 50% on the 5 that you don’t. and if you were ever unemployed I’d give you nothing just to make sure you’re not sponging of the working. and when you retire I’d reduce that by 25% per ‘spare’ bedroom too.

  82. Cynic

    21st September, 2013 at 11:21 am

    Calm down Jozef its a debate not a life changing event .

  83. Jozef Nakielski

    21st September, 2013 at 11:38 am

  84. Cynic

    21st September, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    OK lets look at the case mentioned – ““I have to pay £98 extra a month since the bedroom tax came in,” she said. “We’ve got a four-bedroom house and Paul’s four children””

    They seem to use three rooms with one spare – the man and his mistress in one room and two kids in each of two rooms .How does that equate to three months arrear?

  85. Jozef Nakielski

    22nd September, 2013 at 1:23 am

    I wouldn’t take specific examples as gospel, most of the time only one line of a story is actual fact, the rest is a sort of truth around the one fact. When you actually know the people place or company involved in a story you learn to see how they twist things to sensationalise. Makes it very hard to learn the true facts, so therefore I shall stick to saying that a lot more people are now in debt than before the benefit reforms and councils are have a lot less coffers in the pot, our pot because of it, for what ever reasons. It will take time, effort and money to get that money back and its becoming increasingly obvious that its going to be more than its ‘saved’.
    Note the sudden u turn by labour about it. Whilst they thught it would save money they refused to get rid of it and was prepared to sacrifice the votes that doing so would get them. Now they’ve realised it loses more than it saves they’ve promised to get rid of it. Cons don’t want to cos it’ll mean egg on face after repeatedly refusing to.
    Non of these schemes work, bedroom ‘tax’, atos examinations and tests, HS2, privatisation.
    When they first got into power they tried many ideas and uturned on many of them. I respected them more for that than plowing ahead with ideas that clearly do not work. Then suddenly out the blue they stopped u turning and dug their heals in. Now they’ll have us believe its helping to turn the economy.
    Fact is that the economy is picking up anyway and would have regardless of their schemes. All they did is give us a double dip recession instead of a single one.

  86. Jozef Nakielski

    22nd September, 2013 at 1:39 am

    50,000 authority plus 30,000 Housing association. What a mess. even allowing for a papers make believe they can’t be a great deal out.
    not sure where the ‘mistress’ is it’s not normal to call a single males long term partner a mistress these days.

    They have one room obviously, two children have another, and the older two probabbly have one each.
    By the sounds of it from ‘extra’comment they’re already paying some rent and council tax.

    The problem is that there’s not much work out there. I’ve not got one interview in 8 months and all the jobs require me to work sundays.No company should force everyone to work sundays, some jobs should weekdays, some should weekends. Not everyone can work weekends.
    The longer you are out of work the worse it gets though because road tax, insurance, mot runs out, then you’ve no transport to be able to get to work, bills start to run up, especially as winter sets in.

    These people need ALL of their benefits so that they have the best chance possible to be able to get back into work. Get people back into work and reduce the benefits bill in a positive way.
    Case Study

    Toni Bloomfield, 25, lives in Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, with her partner, Paul Bolton, 42, and his four children.

    “I have to pay £98 extra a month since the bedroom tax came in,” she said. “We’ve got a four-bedroom house and Paul’s four children, aged between two and eight, live with us. Before the school holidays we were struggling and now we’re nearly three months behind on rent.

    “The children get free school meals and feeding them through the holidays was tough. Paul and I are only eating in the evenings two or three nights a week to make sure we can put enough food on the table. We’re not working, but not out of choice. Trying to find a full-time job here is a nightmare.”

  87. Cynic

    22nd September, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    “I wouldn’t take specific examples as gospel”
    You then go on to quote the same case problem.
    When your example fails at the first question you say ignore it!

    We do not have much detail – neither you or the paper gave data to base facts upon.
    Is it because THREE, months arrears, is too high for their readers to understand ?
    Lets presume they are not real and talk about a fictional family.
    I have already stated how they should be sleeping but you seem to think the tax payer should pay for a room each for kids under 8 – we agree to differ. There are very few people – excluding those on hand outs – that can afford such a large house and four kids.
    Both adults out of work – a quick search shows 20,000 twenty thousand jobs in the area some skilled some no skill what so ever.

    No matter how much money you have you should prioritise how you spend it.
    Most important IMO is rent and food – they can not afford either – so what is it spent on?
    They are already in arrears after only a short time together.
    Why did they take on such an expensive large house?
    Why not go to a cheaper area?
    Why are they unemployed?

    “The problem is that there’s not much work out there – all the jobs require me to work”
    Can we make our mind up – is it no work or no work you are willing to do?
    “The longer you are out of work the worse it gets “ Is this how it works – you attend an interview – BOSS “Why do you want to work for us?” – unemployed “I don’t – only when it suits me.”
    I wonder how long you would be so picky if there was no handouts?

    “Not everyone can work weekends.”
    But you are prepared to make others work and pay tax so you can stay at home!
    Do they no longer require the unemployed to agree they are available for work – or have they given up that pretence?

    If you are making someone else work to pay for your life style you should work any hours offered.

  88. Jozef Nakielski

    22nd September, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    I’ve tried to explain it by assumption, theres not enough fact there to explain it properly cynic. they may be in tthree bedrooms and have one spare for all i know . They may be dole dossing morons who haven’t worked a day in their life apart from to knock kids out. Just because suc people exist we shouldn’t assume.

  89. Jozef Nakielski

    22nd September, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    I agree to a point, 4 bedrooms seems luxurious to me. They need one, the boys need one and the girls need one, but if there’s three boys will they all fit in one or are they small rooms. Comes back to my view that we shouldn’t be encouraging people to have kids with blanket wide benefits of child benefit, unlimited sizes of houses, and now its free school meals. Takes the piss when a child gets a free school meal but we can’t afford teaching equipment. Its parents jobs to feed kids, especially when working.
    I don’t consider it to be a hand pout if they parents have been working, have lost their jobs and are trying to get one. I know how many jobs are out there, thousands, hundreds of thousands, but try getting even an unskilled on and i can assure you you’d wait months even for a reply let alone a phone call. I’ve spent the all of this year there. I wasn’t fussy, I’d do anything from a street sweeper to my old job of Electrician. I’ve done all sorts over the years. A job = pride and self worth no matter what the job. When there are thousands chasing each job its like winning the lottery.
    Cynic there is is no ‘imo’ on rent and food, it is FACT that they are THE most important and should always be paid first. Then bills then and only then luxuries like tv telephone.
    The problem that does occur is that without a telephone , internet and a car it is even more difficult to get a job. I’d rather pay for those than drink, smoke and pay for a tv licence.
    Also many things are ‘in contract’ if people aren’t carefull they ‘ll end up black listed and credit can be vital to tide people over for the month of getting in to a new job.

    I stick by what i said. No one should be forced to work sunday, not even for benefits. Its one thing that we need to hold on to or we will become slaves to employers. It is employers that need to change their attitude on that one. Plenty want to work, will work, but those that don’t want to because of religion. tradition or can’t because they do have to have some other life than work that differentiates them from slaves, shouldn’t have to work.

    In my case I was looking after mum in the late mornings and early afternoons in the week. I could work evenings or nights. At the weekend i spend sat and sunday with my lady. She doesn’t live with me because she works down in Milton keynes. Rather than give her job up and move up here she stayed in work and got a house down there. If i worked ‘most’ weekends i’d never see her. As it is i’d only see her on a sunday till 7

  90. Cynic

    22nd September, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    Jozef – Lets put our differences to one side for a moment – I will put my humane hat on – Don’t think I will do that when I retire – do it now – later may be too late – now I put my other hat back on (LOL).

  91. Jozef Nakielski

    22nd September, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    do what when i retire ?

  92. Jozef Nakielski

    22nd September, 2013 at 6:53 pm

    my worry is that if this caring role comes to an end I’m going to end up back on the dole . Thats what i need to do before i retire, get my career back. Instead of paying me dole every week they could have sent me to college and renewed my qualification, that would have helped and would have been money well invested. Dole plus council tax, plus housing benefit, plus travel concessions plus prescriptions plus i’m sure there’s other benefits. you’d think they’d be keen to re train.

  93. Cynic

    22nd September, 2013 at 6:53 pm

    “do what when i retire ?” A lot of us have dreams of what we would like to do when we retire – reality rarely lets us do what we like – some leave their dreams till it is too late – you may not have ambitions to achieve some thing or you may have it perfect ,for you ,right now – if that is the case good on you.
    Yes I know I was being nice and you may not understand that but don’t worry I will take some more tablets and I will be OK later (LOL).