Affordable housing requirement cut by Colchester Council

Essex County Standard: Future developments such as the Betts factory site could be affected Future developments such as the Betts factory site could be affected

Thousands of Colchester residents already struggling to get on the housing ladder could be hit by a new ruling.

Previously, 35 per cent of homes on new large-scale developments had to be “affordable.”

Now changes to Colchester’s local plan - the town’s planning blueprint - mean only 20 per cent must be “affordable.”

The change could affect future building projects such as the former Betts factory site, in Ipswich Road, where Bellway Homes is expected to lodge a formal application for a 200-home development in the next month.

A council spokesman said: “New national policy has put a strong focus on the viability of developments.

“A study carried out for the council showed that the previous affordable housing requirement of 35 per cent was not realistic and that 20 per cent is more achievable.”

Full story in today's Gazette

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:25pm Wed 28 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

This does not help
Students are carrying up to £60,000 of debt.
The "Blusted Flush" leader of the LibDems lied about Student Fees.
When will young people ever be able to put a roof over their heads?
This does not help Students are carrying up to £60,000 of debt. The "Blusted Flush" leader of the LibDems lied about Student Fees. When will young people ever be able to put a roof over their heads? Shrubendlad
  • Score: 8

3:38pm Wed 28 May 14

AngryManNewTown says...

This is madness. This can not be allowed to happen.
This is madness. This can not be allowed to happen. AngryManNewTown
  • Score: 1

4:18pm Wed 28 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

???How much public money has been used to improve the Dutch Quarter over the last decades. If there is any zone which should be designated Social Housing its in the Dutch Quarter. Close to Jobs. Close to Need.
???How much public money has been used to improve the Dutch Quarter over the last decades. If there is any zone which should be designated Social Housing its in the Dutch Quarter. Close to Jobs. Close to Need. Shrubendlad
  • Score: 7

4:24pm Wed 28 May 14

Jack222 says...

20 % still seems very fair to me. It's the middle class people who will keep Chelmsford shops open and provide jobs in cafes and such like as well.

Agreed a ridiculous problem is coming with the debt saddled on university people - but that's a different issue... (Fewer students in real courses paid for by public funds as these students will get paid well and so tax them more with normal taxation later in life...)
20 % still seems very fair to me. It's the middle class people who will keep Chelmsford shops open and provide jobs in cafes and such like as well. Agreed a ridiculous problem is coming with the debt saddled on university people - but that's a different issue... (Fewer students in real courses paid for by public funds as these students will get paid well and so tax them more with normal taxation later in life...) Jack222
  • Score: -1

4:33pm Wed 28 May 14

Legend says...

This is a real shame, I love walking round pristine new build estates playing the "spot the social housing game". It's easy to play, just look for the houses that have sofas/washing machines outside, are in a poor state of repair despite being only a few years old and have garden "ornaments" that look like something out of "my big fat gypsy front yard".

Now I may be exaggerating here, but I guarantee you that on any given development you will be able to tell which houses are "affordable" by the general lack of care taken of them. If I lived on a new build estate, I would be distraught to say the least that someone could effectively have the same house as me but without having to put in the effort that I had gone through to be able to afford it.
This is a real shame, I love walking round pristine new build estates playing the "spot the social housing game". It's easy to play, just look for the houses that have sofas/washing machines outside, are in a poor state of repair despite being only a few years old and have garden "ornaments" that look like something out of "my big fat gypsy front yard". Now I may be exaggerating here, but I guarantee you that on any given development you will be able to tell which houses are "affordable" by the general lack of care taken of them. If I lived on a new build estate, I would be distraught to say the least that someone could effectively have the same house as me but without having to put in the effort that I had gone through to be able to afford it. Legend
  • Score: 17

5:00pm Wed 28 May 14

AngryManNewTown says...

Jack222 wrote:
20 % still seems very fair to me. It's the middle class people who will keep Chelmsford shops open and provide jobs in cafes and such like as well. Agreed a ridiculous problem is coming with the debt saddled on university people - but that's a different issue... (Fewer students in real courses paid for by public funds as these students will get paid well and so tax them more with normal taxation later in life...)
Chelmsford Shops?!?!?!?
[quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: 20 % still seems very fair to me. It's the middle class people who will keep Chelmsford shops open and provide jobs in cafes and such like as well. Agreed a ridiculous problem is coming with the debt saddled on university people - but that's a different issue... (Fewer students in real courses paid for by public funds as these students will get paid well and so tax them more with normal taxation later in life...)[/p][/quote]Chelmsford Shops?!?!?!? AngryManNewTown
  • Score: 9

5:25pm Wed 28 May 14

Allan Whitehead says...

Legend,

From your comments, I would rate you as one of those neighbours who occasionally make some pleasant comment about others.

If someone actions upset you so much. Surely, you appear to be outspoken behind a non-de-plume. Why not have the decency to use your name so we will be able to witness just what state your area and abode stand up to visual inspection.

I have never rated anyone’s sarcastic ramblings when hidden, from public scrutiny behind some alias name. I feel those who criticise some other people’s way of life without adding their truthful full names are really cowards and cowardly.
Legend, From your comments, I would rate you as one of those neighbours who occasionally make some pleasant comment about others. If someone actions upset you so much. Surely, you appear to be outspoken behind a non-de-plume. Why not have the decency to use your name so we will be able to witness just what state your area and abode stand up to visual inspection. I have never rated anyone’s sarcastic ramblings when hidden, from public scrutiny behind some alias name. I feel those who criticise some other people’s way of life without adding their truthful full names are really cowards and cowardly. Allan Whitehead
  • Score: -7

5:54pm Wed 28 May 14

common sense or not says...

Change it to a payment to a fund that allowed the council to build high density social housing. That should give better value and more homes. Often developers have paid a lot for their sites so units cost more in that location but the council might be able to find cheaper locations to build using the fund.
Change it to a payment to a fund that allowed the council to build high density social housing. That should give better value and more homes. Often developers have paid a lot for their sites so units cost more in that location but the council might be able to find cheaper locations to build using the fund. common sense or not
  • Score: 9

6:00pm Wed 28 May 14

Taj says...

The towns youngsters have been betrayed by self serving councillors .rents at £800 a month short term letting ,how on earth can young people working on modest income ever get their own homes particularly with the new tests for mortgages
The fact this news is released after the election is no surprise ,hopefully one day this town and its population will wake up and do something at the next election.
The biggest mistake of all was to sell off social housing without replacing it and now honest hard working young people are paying the price.
The people that made this decision should be ashamed of themselves.
The towns youngsters have been betrayed by self serving councillors .rents at £800 a month short term letting ,how on earth can young people working on modest income ever get their own homes particularly with the new tests for mortgages The fact this news is released after the election is no surprise ,hopefully one day this town and its population will wake up and do something at the next election. The biggest mistake of all was to sell off social housing without replacing it and now honest hard working young people are paying the price. The people that made this decision should be ashamed of themselves. Taj
  • Score: 15

9:40pm Wed 28 May 14

Allan Whitehead says...

common sense or not wrote:
Change it to a payment to a fund that allowed the council to build high density social housing. That should give better value and more homes. Often developers have paid a lot for their sites so units cost more in that location but the council might be able to find cheaper locations to build using the fund.
How right you are. Unfortunately when some become elected members common sense is left behind, and their eyeballs turn into cash registers..
[quote][p][bold]common sense or not[/bold] wrote: Change it to a payment to a fund that allowed the council to build high density social housing. That should give better value and more homes. Often developers have paid a lot for their sites so units cost more in that location but the council might be able to find cheaper locations to build using the fund.[/p][/quote]How right you are. Unfortunately when some become elected members common sense is left behind, and their eyeballs turn into cash registers.. Allan Whitehead
  • Score: 4

10:15pm Wed 28 May 14

The-Professionals says...

Why should we be paying for affordable housing at 35%, even though 20% seems adequate enough. We should not be building anything bigger than up to 2 bedroom properties. Tenants or occupiers should be able to buy at 50&% discount after 10 years of rent. People will not cut their cloth according to their means and save a little for their futures. A DSS officer once told me when I was long term unemployed, to save little of what money I had and try to better myself. At the time I thought what Pr*ck, but it sunk in and I took heed and managed a lot better in life than I thought I could. 30 New build three bedroom social housing has gone up near me, in they come with their next to new cars, when their neighbours living on the private side of the development struggle with average trusted and rusty steeds. The problem is that if we keep spoon feeding people with benefits and social housing, they will just keep on going sipping or sucking off the fat of the land. Some of them are noisy, unruly and expect all and sundry on the backs of everyone else. We should not be building 3 bedroom plus size social housing. Have less children ie procreate less, take a two bedroom house, do what my wife and I did, that is give the children a bedroom each and the couple sleep on a double sofa-bed in the living room. Save up your money on lesser rent and housing costs. Take your right to buy on a lesser sized place, with a decent deposit you can move later to a bigger place under your own steam. We should not be spoon feeding social housing applicants, into £225,000 three bedroom houses of wanton desired utopia at £105 per week housing association rent.
Colchester Tenants & Leaseholders Association 1995 to 2002. CTLA.
Why should we be paying for affordable housing at 35%, even though 20% seems adequate enough. We should not be building anything bigger than up to 2 bedroom properties. Tenants or occupiers should be able to buy at 50&% discount after 10 years of rent. People will not cut their cloth according to their means and save a little for their futures. A DSS officer once told me when I was long term unemployed, to save little of what money I had and try to better myself. At the time I thought what Pr*ck, but it sunk in and I took heed and managed a lot better in life than I thought I could. 30 New build three bedroom social housing has gone up near me, in they come with their next to new cars, when their neighbours living on the private side of the development struggle with average trusted and rusty steeds. The problem is that if we keep spoon feeding people with benefits and social housing, they will just keep on going sipping or sucking off the fat of the land. Some of them are noisy, unruly and expect all and sundry on the backs of everyone else. We should not be building 3 bedroom plus size social housing. Have less children ie procreate less, take a two bedroom house, do what my wife and I did, that is give the children a bedroom each and the couple sleep on a double sofa-bed in the living room. Save up your money on lesser rent and housing costs. Take your right to buy on a lesser sized place, with a decent deposit you can move later to a bigger place under your own steam. We should not be spoon feeding social housing applicants, into £225,000 three bedroom houses of wanton desired utopia at £105 per week housing association rent. Colchester Tenants & Leaseholders Association 1995 to 2002. CTLA. The-Professionals
  • Score: 9

2:22am Thu 29 May 14

Boris says...

What is meant by "affordable" housing? There isn't any. What we need is not so-called "affordable housing", but lots and lots of council houses for rent, and the end of "right to buy".
Nobody needs to own a house. Everyone needs a house to live in.
It is deeply shameful that in this extremely rich country there are millions of people, especially young people, who can't afford a decent place to live.
What is meant by "affordable" housing? There isn't any. What we need is not so-called "affordable housing", but lots and lots of council houses for rent, and the end of "right to buy". Nobody needs to own a house. Everyone needs a house to live in. It is deeply shameful that in this extremely rich country there are millions of people, especially young people, who can't afford a decent place to live. Boris
  • Score: 1

5:46am Thu 29 May 14

James Harrington says...

Jack222 wrote:
20 % still seems very fair to me. It's the middle class people who will keep Chelmsford shops open and provide jobs in cafes and such like as well.

Agreed a ridiculous problem is coming with the debt saddled on university people - but that's a different issue... (Fewer students in real courses paid for by public funds as these students will get paid well and so tax them more with normal taxation later in life...)
Boris says... 2:22am Thu 29 May 14
What is meant by "affordable" housing? There isn't any. What we need is not so-called "affordable housing", but lots and lots of council houses for rent, and the end of "right to buy".
Nobody needs to own a house. Everyone needs a house to live in.
It is deeply shameful that in this extremely rich country there are millions of people, especially young people, who can't afford a decent place to live.>>>>
Dont you ever sleep? 2.22 am. This is not the model of Conservative philosophy and nor of the young people of today. Post 80's kids want cheap money, low interest rates, and i mean low. They want cars, takeaways, cigarettes, holidays, booze, designer clothes and the IKEA lifestyle to match all the backs of a £60,000 plus education of which 50% of them will not pay a penny back to the state according to recent media statistics. Most debts will be written off as the annual threshold increases for repayment in relation to income. My child paid their fees off as they
went along, subsequently no debts ! Shock horror ? They did their 4 year course and now have been told they cannot get work, unless they do more study and it was a 30 hour a week on site course, non of this study of marvel comics 1 hour a week job. As for the rest sure they need houses, everyone needs a home, but we also have to have a need to recognise there is no money, as for building more social/council housing call it what you like its all the same. People who advocate building in the old style council housing regime, really need to step up to the plate with modern day history, thinking and culture. The business model of social housing is completely different. Houses need to be built, money needs to be gleaned in rents from those houses, then they should be sold at a discount and provide a leg up as an incentive and so the merry go round of commerce and enterprise continues. That is how it works, it does not work by sitting on masses of stock for donkeys years and gleaning rents year in year out. Houses actually start loosing money to associations and so called councils after about 25 years, more is paid out in repairs and running costs than is being taken in. A new kitchen, bathroom or Central Heating system, virtually wipes out the rent gleaned in 1 year at £105 per week average. I am sorry but this is one area where lack of knowledge and facts of how the system works, fuels a rather misinformed ideal and culture of thinking. The system we have in place is the right one we are just not building enough, I think 33% per annum would be better in property of all sizes and sold after 15 to 20 years. Tenants should not be allowed properties until they prove financial competence and abilities and that does mean riddled in jewellery driving up to date plate cars either. Building these houses under the guise and banner of social housing, to be paid for on the backs of social rent subsidy in housing benefit allowances, is an absurd ideal and this is where the problem lies, everyone should be contributing to their rent, benefits or not, working or not ! The young of today have the wrong attitude. The Germans are now seeing the light in housing aspirations, no longer do Germans wish to rent, they would rather pay more and own the property, rather than go on feeding a bottomless trough to a faceless bureaucracy. They **** their priorities of needs in a relevant order and there is very few TOWIE or MIChelsea or Geordie Shore TV shows to interfere with their goals and life path aspirations. Less of the hair, make up and wanting to be a Celebrity Big Brother TV star and more getting on with the hard facts of life. Life is hard it is designed to be that way, it has killed my friends and I, rather early in our years. £100 per week for a £200,000 property, does not compute in my book but it is allowed and that is enough. Building to many of them to flood a difficult market is a very dangerous conception.
[quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: 20 % still seems very fair to me. It's the middle class people who will keep Chelmsford shops open and provide jobs in cafes and such like as well. Agreed a ridiculous problem is coming with the debt saddled on university people - but that's a different issue... (Fewer students in real courses paid for by public funds as these students will get paid well and so tax them more with normal taxation later in life...)[/p][/quote]Boris says... 2:22am Thu 29 May 14 What is meant by "affordable" housing? There isn't any. What we need is not so-called "affordable housing", but lots and lots of council houses for rent, and the end of "right to buy". Nobody needs to own a house. Everyone needs a house to live in. It is deeply shameful that in this extremely rich country there are millions of people, especially young people, who can't afford a decent place to live.>>>> Dont you ever sleep? 2.22 am. This is not the model of Conservative philosophy and nor of the young people of today. Post 80's kids want cheap money, low interest rates, and i mean low. They want cars, takeaways, cigarettes, holidays, booze, designer clothes and the IKEA lifestyle to match all the backs of a £60,000 plus education of which 50% of them will not pay a penny back to the state according to recent media statistics. Most debts will be written off as the annual threshold increases for repayment in relation to income. My child paid their fees off as they went along, subsequently no debts ! Shock horror ? They did their 4 year course and now have been told they cannot get work, unless they do more study and it was a 30 hour a week on site course, non of this study of marvel comics 1 hour a week job. As for the rest sure they need houses, everyone needs a home, but we also have to have a need to recognise there is no money, as for building more social/council housing call it what you like its all the same. People who advocate building in the old style council housing regime, really need to step up to the plate with modern day history, thinking and culture. The business model of social housing is completely different. Houses need to be built, money needs to be gleaned in rents from those houses, then they should be sold at a discount and provide a leg up as an incentive and so the merry go round of commerce and enterprise continues. That is how it works, it does not work by sitting on masses of stock for donkeys years and gleaning rents year in year out. Houses actually start loosing money to associations and so called councils after about 25 years, more is paid out in repairs and running costs than is being taken in. A new kitchen, bathroom or Central Heating system, virtually wipes out the rent gleaned in 1 year at £105 per week average. I am sorry but this is one area where lack of knowledge and facts of how the system works, fuels a rather misinformed ideal and culture of thinking. The system we have in place is the right one we are just not building enough, I think 33% per annum would be better in property of all sizes and sold after 15 to 20 years. Tenants should not be allowed properties until they prove financial competence and abilities and that does mean riddled in jewellery driving up to date plate cars either. Building these houses under the guise and banner of social housing, to be paid for on the backs of social rent subsidy in housing benefit allowances, is an absurd ideal and this is where the problem lies, everyone should be contributing to their rent, benefits or not, working or not ! The young of today have the wrong attitude. The Germans are now seeing the light in housing aspirations, no longer do Germans wish to rent, they would rather pay more and own the property, rather than go on feeding a bottomless trough to a faceless bureaucracy. They **** their priorities of needs in a relevant order and there is very few TOWIE or MIChelsea or Geordie Shore TV shows to interfere with their goals and life path aspirations. Less of the hair, make up and wanting to be a Celebrity Big Brother TV star and more getting on with the hard facts of life. Life is hard it is designed to be that way, it has killed my friends and I, rather early in our years. £100 per week for a £200,000 property, does not compute in my book but it is allowed and that is enough. Building to many of them to flood a difficult market is a very dangerous conception. James Harrington
  • Score: 4

5:52am Thu 29 May 14

James Harrington says...

Tenants should not be allowed properties until they prove financial competence and abilities and that does NOT..NOT mean riddled in jewellery driving up to date plate cars either.

Should have read.
Tenants should not be allowed properties until they prove financial competence and abilities and that does NOT..NOT mean riddled in jewellery driving up to date plate cars either. Should have read. James Harrington
  • Score: 8

7:46am Thu 29 May 14

James Harrington says...

Legend wrote:
This is a real shame, I love walking round pristine new build estates playing the "spot the social housing game". It's easy to play, just look for the houses that have sofas/washing machines outside, are in a poor state of repair despite being only a few years old and have garden "ornaments" that look like something out of "my big fat gypsy front yard".

Now I may be exaggerating here, but I guarantee you that on any given development you will be able to tell which houses are "affordable" by the general lack of care taken of them. If I lived on a new build estate, I would be distraught to say the least that someone could effectively have the same house as me but without having to put in the effort that I had gone through to be able to afford it.
FURTHER QUOTE Allan Whitehead says... 5:25pm Wed 28 May 14
Legend,

From your comments, I would rate you as one of those neighbours who occasionally make some pleasant comment about others.

If someone actions upset you so much. Surely, you appear to be outspoken behind a non-de-plume. Why not have the decency to use your name so we will be able to witness just what state your area and abode stand up to visual inspection.

I have never rated anyone’s sarcastic ramblings when hidden, from public scrutiny behind some alias name. I feel those who criticise some other people’s way of life without adding their truthful full names are really cowards and cowardly.

>>>> That has too be someone from my development at Lakelands, CO3 8WX because there is just such a house in the description, on the new bit at Phase 2.
There is a level of understanding and conception in Legend's post. However the response form Mr Whitehead can be seen as one with emotion and some vibrant vitriol in its reply. I for one get the points that have been raised from both of you. Having worked in Social Housing for some years in a voluntary capacity, I would be happy to meet you Mr Whitehead and take you on a guided tour of what I think "Legend" is attempting to advocate or portray, albeit it in somewhat of a light-hearted or sarcastic fashion. These things do occur and appear to be an excepted stereotype of a situation, that is fuelled and born out of ignorance and lack of common sense knowledge, than direct intention. There are clear issues on both sides of the coin, however in mitigation to Legend, it is more against the things that Legend was advocating or suggesting than those who choose to defend social housing.
Some schemes of Social Housing have been an abject failure. I quote the £350,000 Penthouse Style Apartments near the Bus Station At Chelmsford:
James/
[quote][p][bold]Legend[/bold] wrote: This is a real shame, I love walking round pristine new build estates playing the "spot the social housing game". It's easy to play, just look for the houses that have sofas/washing machines outside, are in a poor state of repair despite being only a few years old and have garden "ornaments" that look like something out of "my big fat gypsy front yard". Now I may be exaggerating here, but I guarantee you that on any given development you will be able to tell which houses are "affordable" by the general lack of care taken of them. If I lived on a new build estate, I would be distraught to say the least that someone could effectively have the same house as me but without having to put in the effort that I had gone through to be able to afford it.[/p][/quote]FURTHER QUOTE Allan Whitehead says... 5:25pm Wed 28 May 14 Legend, From your comments, I would rate you as one of those neighbours who occasionally make some pleasant comment about others. If someone actions upset you so much. Surely, you appear to be outspoken behind a non-de-plume. Why not have the decency to use your name so we will be able to witness just what state your area and abode stand up to visual inspection. I have never rated anyone’s sarcastic ramblings when hidden, from public scrutiny behind some alias name. I feel those who criticise some other people’s way of life without adding their truthful full names are really cowards and cowardly. >>>> That has too be someone from my development at Lakelands, CO3 8WX because there is just such a house in the description, on the new bit at Phase 2. There is a level of understanding and conception in Legend's post. However the response form Mr Whitehead can be seen as one with emotion and some vibrant vitriol in its reply. I for one get the points that have been raised from both of you. Having worked in Social Housing for some years in a voluntary capacity, I would be happy to meet you Mr Whitehead and take you on a guided tour of what I think "Legend" is attempting to advocate or portray, albeit it in somewhat of a light-hearted or sarcastic fashion. These things do occur and appear to be an excepted stereotype of a situation, that is fuelled and born out of ignorance and lack of common sense knowledge, than direct intention. There are clear issues on both sides of the coin, however in mitigation to Legend, it is more against the things that Legend was advocating or suggesting than those who choose to defend social housing. Some schemes of Social Housing have been an abject failure. I quote the £350,000 Penthouse Style Apartments near the Bus Station At Chelmsford: James/ James Harrington
  • Score: 8

8:03am Thu 29 May 14

Legend says...

Allan Whitehead wrote:
Legend,

From your comments, I would rate you as one of those neighbours who occasionally make some pleasant comment about others.

If someone actions upset you so much. Surely, you appear to be outspoken behind a non-de-plume. Why not have the decency to use your name so we will be able to witness just what state your area and abode stand up to visual inspection.

I have never rated anyone’s sarcastic ramblings when hidden, from public scrutiny behind some alias name. I feel those who criticise some other people’s way of life without adding their truthful full names are really cowards and cowardly.
My dearest Allan (if that is your real name). I am not upset by anyone's actions as affordable housing has no direct impact on me. I do not live on a new build development and if you, who is not afraid of posting personal details on public forums, pop your email address up on here, I will gladly email you and let you know where I live. It is not a matter of being a coward, Che Guevara and Malcolm X were (quite rightly) pretty vocal in their criticism of other people's way of life, would you call them cowardly or hiding behind a nom de plume as they have not used their "truthful full names"?

I was merely posting my point of view as an outsider, I'm sorry if my "actions upset you so much", but as that famous coward Mahatma (not his truthful full name) Gandhi once said "Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress"
[quote][p][bold]Allan Whitehead[/bold] wrote: Legend, From your comments, I would rate you as one of those neighbours who occasionally make some pleasant comment about others. If someone actions upset you so much. Surely, you appear to be outspoken behind a non-de-plume. Why not have the decency to use your name so we will be able to witness just what state your area and abode stand up to visual inspection. I have never rated anyone’s sarcastic ramblings when hidden, from public scrutiny behind some alias name. I feel those who criticise some other people’s way of life without adding their truthful full names are really cowards and cowardly.[/p][/quote]My dearest Allan (if that is your real name). I am not upset by anyone's actions as affordable housing has no direct impact on me. I do not live on a new build development and if you, who is not afraid of posting personal details on public forums, pop your email address up on here, I will gladly email you and let you know where I live. It is not a matter of being a coward, Che Guevara and Malcolm X were (quite rightly) pretty vocal in their criticism of other people's way of life, would you call them cowardly or hiding behind a nom de plume as they have not used their "truthful full names"? I was merely posting my point of view as an outsider, I'm sorry if my "actions upset you so much", but as that famous coward Mahatma (not his truthful full name) Gandhi once said "Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress" Legend
  • Score: 5

1:40pm Thu 29 May 14

AngryManNewTown says...

It's nice to see a Labour Councillor wanting to reduce the number of affordable homes. Out of touch much!!!
It's nice to see a Labour Councillor wanting to reduce the number of affordable homes. Out of touch much!!! AngryManNewTown
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Thu 29 May 14

stevedawson says...

Full time permanent jobs is what we should aspire to before we talk any type of houseing.the whole system is a muddle, that neither political party has the answer for.the destruction of our way of life in the eighties ensured that the rich would continue to get richer with rest scambling around for a bigger share of whats left.vote ukip.
Full time permanent jobs is what we should aspire to before we talk any type of houseing.the whole system is a muddle, that neither political party has the answer for.the destruction of our way of life in the eighties ensured that the rich would continue to get richer with rest scambling around for a bigger share of whats left.vote ukip. stevedawson
  • Score: -2

10:05am Sat 31 May 14

Nom De Plume says...

Council housing is not the answer, far to much time, energy, money and resources is spent on social housing in wiping tenants bottoms.
I worked on committees as a tenant volunteer and a committee member and what a waste of time. Millions in social housing is wasted on sorting out neighbour disputes and problems, there is far too much "please miss" finger pointing going on and tittle tattling in council tenancies. My answer is to offer a special scheme to buy council homes from the outset on a piecemeal basis, thus serving two fold. 1. If it gives the right to buy to all, via an instant means, without the need for a loan from any funding lender. 2. It would take away the secure and assured short hold tenancy law in part and therefore give the occupier the same rights and privileges enjoyed in the private sector.
I am not going to give full details of my idea as plagiarism is rife on these networks and i want recompense for labours.
There is a way forward, however the subject is ruined by out of touch individuals that think they know when they do not. This is mainly the reason why government will not build, because industry and commerce cannot see any money in it or recovering ones investment.
Council housing is not the answer, far to much time, energy, money and resources is spent on social housing in wiping tenants bottoms. I worked on committees as a tenant volunteer and a committee member and what a waste of time. Millions in social housing is wasted on sorting out neighbour disputes and problems, there is far too much "please miss" finger pointing going on and tittle tattling in council tenancies. My answer is to offer a special scheme to buy council homes from the outset on a piecemeal basis, thus serving two fold. 1. If it gives the right to buy to all, via an instant means, without the need for a loan from any funding lender. 2. It would take away the secure and assured short hold tenancy law in part and therefore give the occupier the same rights and privileges enjoyed in the private sector. I am not going to give full details of my idea as plagiarism is rife on these networks and i want recompense for labours. There is a way forward, however the subject is ruined by out of touch individuals that think they know when they do not. This is mainly the reason why government will not build, because industry and commerce cannot see any money in it or recovering ones investment. Nom De Plume
  • Score: 2

1:02pm Mon 2 Jun 14

wormshero says...

James Harrington wrote:
Jack222 wrote:
20 % still seems very fair to me. It's the middle class people who will keep Chelmsford shops open and provide jobs in cafes and such like as well.

Agreed a ridiculous problem is coming with the debt saddled on university people - but that's a different issue... (Fewer students in real courses paid for by public funds as these students will get paid well and so tax them more with normal taxation later in life...)
Boris says... 2:22am Thu 29 May 14
What is meant by "affordable" housing? There isn't any. What we need is not so-called "affordable housing", but lots and lots of council houses for rent, and the end of "right to buy".
Nobody needs to own a house. Everyone needs a house to live in.
It is deeply shameful that in this extremely rich country there are millions of people, especially young people, who can't afford a decent place to live.>>>&gt
;
Dont you ever sleep? 2.22 am. This is not the model of Conservative philosophy and nor of the young people of today. Post 80's kids want cheap money, low interest rates, and i mean low. They want cars, takeaways, cigarettes, holidays, booze, designer clothes and the IKEA lifestyle to match all the backs of a £60,000 plus education of which 50% of them will not pay a penny back to the state according to recent media statistics. Most debts will be written off as the annual threshold increases for repayment in relation to income. My child paid their fees off as they
went along, subsequently no debts ! Shock horror ? They did their 4 year course and now have been told they cannot get work, unless they do more study and it was a 30 hour a week on site course, non of this study of marvel comics 1 hour a week job. As for the rest sure they need houses, everyone needs a home, but we also have to have a need to recognise there is no money, as for building more social/council housing call it what you like its all the same. People who advocate building in the old style council housing regime, really need to step up to the plate with modern day history, thinking and culture. The business model of social housing is completely different. Houses need to be built, money needs to be gleaned in rents from those houses, then they should be sold at a discount and provide a leg up as an incentive and so the merry go round of commerce and enterprise continues. That is how it works, it does not work by sitting on masses of stock for donkeys years and gleaning rents year in year out. Houses actually start loosing money to associations and so called councils after about 25 years, more is paid out in repairs and running costs than is being taken in. A new kitchen, bathroom or Central Heating system, virtually wipes out the rent gleaned in 1 year at £105 per week average. I am sorry but this is one area where lack of knowledge and facts of how the system works, fuels a rather misinformed ideal and culture of thinking. The system we have in place is the right one we are just not building enough, I think 33% per annum would be better in property of all sizes and sold after 15 to 20 years. Tenants should not be allowed properties until they prove financial competence and abilities and that does mean riddled in jewellery driving up to date plate cars either. Building these houses under the guise and banner of social housing, to be paid for on the backs of social rent subsidy in housing benefit allowances, is an absurd ideal and this is where the problem lies, everyone should be contributing to their rent, benefits or not, working or not ! The young of today have the wrong attitude. The Germans are now seeing the light in housing aspirations, no longer do Germans wish to rent, they would rather pay more and own the property, rather than go on feeding a bottomless trough to a faceless bureaucracy. They **** their priorities of needs in a relevant order and there is very few TOWIE or MIChelsea or Geordie Shore TV shows to interfere with their goals and life path aspirations. Less of the hair, make up and wanting to be a Celebrity Big Brother TV star and more getting on with the hard facts of life. Life is hard it is designed to be that way, it has killed my friends and I, rather early in our years. £100 per week for a £200,000 property, does not compute in my book but it is allowed and that is enough. Building to many of them to flood a difficult market is a very dangerous conception.
If your children paid it off as they went along (past tense there...) then they had no where near as much to pay as the current students do. I'm lucky that I went to uni before the tuition fees bumped up (so mine were around £3k per year + maintenance loan. I'm not sure how I could pay any back while studying - I worked part time during the term and full time over the summer (in a surprisingly well paid job - i got lucky) and that just about made up for the shortfall between the really limited maintenance loan and the rent for an average room in Colchester. Adding in food I'm not sure how anyone on the student loan could work enough hours to pay to live and pay back their tuition at the same time. I'm guessing they were either living at home or studying one of those subject which has two hours contact time a week leaving them time to work full time.

" Post 80's kids want cheap money, low interest rates, and i mean low. They want cars, takeaways, cigarettes, holidays, booze, designer clothes and the IKEA lifestyle to match all the backs of a £60,000 plus education of which 50% of them will not pay a penny back to the state according to recent media statistics"
As a post-80s kid I find that massively insulting. I don't care about the majority of those things and, while I can afford to rent and live, buying a house is a pipe dream at the moment, thanks to spiraling housing costs.I put away about 20% of my salary, but at the rate house prices are going I'll never have enough for a decent deposit. My car cost half of a months post-tax salary, I've had one takeaway in 2014 (my apologies), booked my first holiday since 2011 and seriously, who cares about designer clothes anymore anyway? I don't know anyone who goes for certain brands under the ago of 50, except a few friends from well off backgrounds. Renting from private landlords is ridiculous from my view, I'd much rather be paying towards a mortgage, but the only option unless we build a tonne more affordable homes, bring the average house price down and enable people to get onto the property ladder.
[quote][p][bold]James Harrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: 20 % still seems very fair to me. It's the middle class people who will keep Chelmsford shops open and provide jobs in cafes and such like as well. Agreed a ridiculous problem is coming with the debt saddled on university people - but that's a different issue... (Fewer students in real courses paid for by public funds as these students will get paid well and so tax them more with normal taxation later in life...)[/p][/quote]Boris says... 2:22am Thu 29 May 14 What is meant by "affordable" housing? There isn't any. What we need is not so-called "affordable housing", but lots and lots of council houses for rent, and the end of "right to buy". Nobody needs to own a house. Everyone needs a house to live in. It is deeply shameful that in this extremely rich country there are millions of people, especially young people, who can't afford a decent place to live.>>>> ; Dont you ever sleep? 2.22 am. This is not the model of Conservative philosophy and nor of the young people of today. Post 80's kids want cheap money, low interest rates, and i mean low. They want cars, takeaways, cigarettes, holidays, booze, designer clothes and the IKEA lifestyle to match all the backs of a £60,000 plus education of which 50% of them will not pay a penny back to the state according to recent media statistics. Most debts will be written off as the annual threshold increases for repayment in relation to income. My child paid their fees off as they went along, subsequently no debts ! Shock horror ? They did their 4 year course and now have been told they cannot get work, unless they do more study and it was a 30 hour a week on site course, non of this study of marvel comics 1 hour a week job. As for the rest sure they need houses, everyone needs a home, but we also have to have a need to recognise there is no money, as for building more social/council housing call it what you like its all the same. People who advocate building in the old style council housing regime, really need to step up to the plate with modern day history, thinking and culture. The business model of social housing is completely different. Houses need to be built, money needs to be gleaned in rents from those houses, then they should be sold at a discount and provide a leg up as an incentive and so the merry go round of commerce and enterprise continues. That is how it works, it does not work by sitting on masses of stock for donkeys years and gleaning rents year in year out. Houses actually start loosing money to associations and so called councils after about 25 years, more is paid out in repairs and running costs than is being taken in. A new kitchen, bathroom or Central Heating system, virtually wipes out the rent gleaned in 1 year at £105 per week average. I am sorry but this is one area where lack of knowledge and facts of how the system works, fuels a rather misinformed ideal and culture of thinking. The system we have in place is the right one we are just not building enough, I think 33% per annum would be better in property of all sizes and sold after 15 to 20 years. Tenants should not be allowed properties until they prove financial competence and abilities and that does mean riddled in jewellery driving up to date plate cars either. Building these houses under the guise and banner of social housing, to be paid for on the backs of social rent subsidy in housing benefit allowances, is an absurd ideal and this is where the problem lies, everyone should be contributing to their rent, benefits or not, working or not ! The young of today have the wrong attitude. The Germans are now seeing the light in housing aspirations, no longer do Germans wish to rent, they would rather pay more and own the property, rather than go on feeding a bottomless trough to a faceless bureaucracy. They **** their priorities of needs in a relevant order and there is very few TOWIE or MIChelsea or Geordie Shore TV shows to interfere with their goals and life path aspirations. Less of the hair, make up and wanting to be a Celebrity Big Brother TV star and more getting on with the hard facts of life. Life is hard it is designed to be that way, it has killed my friends and I, rather early in our years. £100 per week for a £200,000 property, does not compute in my book but it is allowed and that is enough. Building to many of them to flood a difficult market is a very dangerous conception.[/p][/quote]If your children paid it off as they went along (past tense there...) then they had no where near as much to pay as the current students do. I'm lucky that I went to uni before the tuition fees bumped up (so mine were around £3k per year + maintenance loan. I'm not sure how I could pay any back while studying - I worked part time during the term and full time over the summer (in a surprisingly well paid job - i got lucky) and that just about made up for the shortfall between the really limited maintenance loan and the rent for an average room in Colchester. Adding in food I'm not sure how anyone on the student loan could work enough hours to pay to live and pay back their tuition at the same time. I'm guessing they were either living at home or studying one of those subject which has two hours contact time a week leaving them time to work full time. " Post 80's kids want cheap money, low interest rates, and i mean low. They want cars, takeaways, cigarettes, holidays, booze, designer clothes and the IKEA lifestyle to match all the backs of a £60,000 plus education of which 50% of them will not pay a penny back to the state according to recent media statistics" As a post-80s kid I find that massively insulting. I don't care about the majority of those things and, while I can afford to rent and live, buying a house is a pipe dream at the moment, thanks to spiraling housing costs.I put away about 20% of my salary, but at the rate house prices are going I'll never have enough for a decent deposit. My car cost half of a months post-tax salary, I've had one takeaway in 2014 (my apologies), booked my first holiday since 2011 and seriously, who cares about designer clothes anymore anyway? I don't know anyone who goes for certain brands under the ago of 50, except a few friends from well off backgrounds. Renting from private landlords is ridiculous from my view, I'd much rather be paying towards a mortgage, but the only option unless we build a tonne more affordable homes, bring the average house price down and enable people to get onto the property ladder. wormshero
  • Score: 3

1:18pm Tue 3 Jun 14

CJ1989 says...

The problem with 'affordable housing' is that it doesn't cost that much less to build than the non-affordable stuff. So the lower price the developer receives is simply divided across the cost of all the others, pushing up prices further.

Where I do agree with some of the above posts is we need a massive number of new houses. A huge proportion of the 230,000 new homes we need every year are simply due to an ageing population (despite the UKIP rhetoric) and the knock-on effect of more people at home-owning age. We need to build just about everywhere, but planning is locked in a state of paralysis, and just think of the local resistance facing every new development.

In my ideal world, there should be enough housing to go around, and at sensible, sustainable prices. Council housing should be reserved for those who genuinely, desperately need it (and as a short term measure), and everyone working full time should be able to afford a place. Then the inept government under whichever colour is flying at the time can stop meddling and let the situation reach natural equilibrium.

Also, how did this move on to students? I still don't quite get why people are so anti the tuition fee rise. Tuition is still free at the point of use, and the size of the total debt is ultimately irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you owe £10,000, £30,000, or £100,000. You simply pay 9% of your income over £21,000 until the debt is cleared. Most won't pay it off completely - It's effectively a graduate tax, rather than a loan. If you earn more, you'll pay more (i.e. the total amount). If you earn less, you pay less.

And I'm commenting as a recent graduate and new homeowner. (Which I readily admit was overpriced, but I worked hard, saved a decent deposit, and am not looking to sell any time soon, so don't mind if prices crash over the next few years).
The problem with 'affordable housing' is that it doesn't cost that much less to build than the non-affordable stuff. So the lower price the developer receives is simply divided across the cost of all the others, pushing up prices further. Where I do agree with some of the above posts is we need a massive number of new houses. A huge proportion of the 230,000 new homes we need every year are simply due to an ageing population (despite the UKIP rhetoric) and the knock-on effect of more people at home-owning age. We need to build just about everywhere, but planning is locked in a state of paralysis, and just think of the local resistance facing every new development. In my ideal world, there should be enough housing to go around, and at sensible, sustainable prices. Council housing should be reserved for those who genuinely, desperately need it (and as a short term measure), and everyone working full time should be able to afford a place. Then the inept government under whichever colour is flying at the time can stop meddling and let the situation reach natural equilibrium. Also, how did this move on to students? I still don't quite get why people are so anti the tuition fee rise. Tuition is still free at the point of use, and the size of the total debt is ultimately irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you owe £10,000, £30,000, or £100,000. You simply pay 9% of your income over £21,000 until the debt is cleared. Most won't pay it off completely - It's effectively a graduate tax, rather than a loan. If you earn more, you'll pay more (i.e. the total amount). If you earn less, you pay less. And I'm commenting as a recent graduate and new homeowner. (Which I readily admit was overpriced, but I worked hard, saved a decent deposit, and am not looking to sell any time soon, so don't mind if prices crash over the next few years). CJ1989
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Plausible Deniability says...

CJ1989 wrote:
The problem with 'affordable housing' is that it doesn't cost that much less to build than the non-affordable stuff. So the lower price the developer receives is simply divided across the cost of all the others, pushing up prices further.

Where I do agree with some of the above posts is we need a massive number of new houses. A huge proportion of the 230,000 new homes we need every year are simply due to an ageing population (despite the UKIP rhetoric) and the knock-on effect of more people at home-owning age. We need to build just about everywhere, but planning is locked in a state of paralysis, and just think of the local resistance facing every new development.

In my ideal world, there should be enough housing to go around, and at sensible, sustainable prices. Council housing should be reserved for those who genuinely, desperately need it (and as a short term measure), and everyone working full time should be able to afford a place. Then the inept government under whichever colour is flying at the time can stop meddling and let the situation reach natural equilibrium.

Also, how did this move on to students? I still don't quite get why people are so anti the tuition fee rise. Tuition is still free at the point of use, and the size of the total debt is ultimately irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you owe £10,000, £30,000, or £100,000. You simply pay 9% of your income over £21,000 until the debt is cleared. Most won't pay it off completely - It's effectively a graduate tax, rather than a loan. If you earn more, you'll pay more (i.e. the total amount). If you earn less, you pay less.

And I'm commenting as a recent graduate and new homeowner. (Which I readily admit was overpriced, but I worked hard, saved a decent deposit, and am not looking to sell any time soon, so don't mind if prices crash over the next few years).
quote::::wormshero above

As a post-80s kid I find that massively insulting. I don't care about the majority of those things and, while I can afford to rent and live, buying a house is a pipe dream at the moment, thanks to spiraling housing costs.I put away about 20% of my salary, but at the rate house prices are going I'll never have enough for a decent deposit. My car cost half of a months post-tax salary, I've had one takeaway in 2014 (my apologies), booked my first holiday since 2011 and seriously, who cares about designer clothes anymore anyway? I don't know anyone who goes for certain brands under the ago of 50, except a few friends from well off backgrounds. Renting from private landlords is ridiculous from my view, I'd much rather be paying towards a mortgage, but the only option unless we build a tonne more affordable homes, bring the average house price down and enable people to get onto the property ladder.:::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::
and what sensible response from what is an intelligent person above.
as for wormshero, what did you study? let me guess you are an astrophysicist oh no the historic history of beer mats and bar towels? please get a life don't you watch TOWIE Geordie Shore Made In Chelsea this is the i want it all i want it now society the post 80's bunch are the most rudest selfish crowd i know, if you have a degree with melancholic drivel you wrote in response then only GOD can help us, i put my life on the line for perople like you, i am burnt to a crisp with a body that would make some people puke i tell you the pain i went through was less worse than the utter cr*p you just wrote.
and by the way i do not believe a word you said.
[quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote: The problem with 'affordable housing' is that it doesn't cost that much less to build than the non-affordable stuff. So the lower price the developer receives is simply divided across the cost of all the others, pushing up prices further. Where I do agree with some of the above posts is we need a massive number of new houses. A huge proportion of the 230,000 new homes we need every year are simply due to an ageing population (despite the UKIP rhetoric) and the knock-on effect of more people at home-owning age. We need to build just about everywhere, but planning is locked in a state of paralysis, and just think of the local resistance facing every new development. In my ideal world, there should be enough housing to go around, and at sensible, sustainable prices. Council housing should be reserved for those who genuinely, desperately need it (and as a short term measure), and everyone working full time should be able to afford a place. Then the inept government under whichever colour is flying at the time can stop meddling and let the situation reach natural equilibrium. Also, how did this move on to students? I still don't quite get why people are so anti the tuition fee rise. Tuition is still free at the point of use, and the size of the total debt is ultimately irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you owe £10,000, £30,000, or £100,000. You simply pay 9% of your income over £21,000 until the debt is cleared. Most won't pay it off completely - It's effectively a graduate tax, rather than a loan. If you earn more, you'll pay more (i.e. the total amount). If you earn less, you pay less. And I'm commenting as a recent graduate and new homeowner. (Which I readily admit was overpriced, but I worked hard, saved a decent deposit, and am not looking to sell any time soon, so don't mind if prices crash over the next few years).[/p][/quote]quote::::wormshero above As a post-80s kid I find that massively insulting. I don't care about the majority of those things and, while I can afford to rent and live, buying a house is a pipe dream at the moment, thanks to spiraling housing costs.I put away about 20% of my salary, but at the rate house prices are going I'll never have enough for a decent deposit. My car cost half of a months post-tax salary, I've had one takeaway in 2014 (my apologies), booked my first holiday since 2011 and seriously, who cares about designer clothes anymore anyway? I don't know anyone who goes for certain brands under the ago of 50, except a few friends from well off backgrounds. Renting from private landlords is ridiculous from my view, I'd much rather be paying towards a mortgage, but the only option unless we build a tonne more affordable homes, bring the average house price down and enable people to get onto the property ladder.::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: and what sensible response from what is an intelligent person above. as for wormshero, what did you study? let me guess you are an astrophysicist oh no the historic history of beer mats and bar towels? please get a life don't you watch TOWIE Geordie Shore Made In Chelsea this is the i want it all i want it now society the post 80's bunch are the most rudest selfish crowd i know, if you have a degree with melancholic drivel you wrote in response then only GOD can help us, i put my life on the line for perople like you, i am burnt to a crisp with a body that would make some people puke i tell you the pain i went through was less worse than the utter cr*p you just wrote. and by the way i do not believe a word you said. Plausible Deniability
  • Score: -1

8:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14

wormshero says...

I think you basically summed up your problem with "don't you watch TOWIE Geordie Shore Made In Chelsea" bit. You're basing your opinion of younger people on fictional tv shows showing an exaggerated version of a certain well off lifestyle. In reality very few people live like that, certainly no one I'd associate with, most of us couldn't if we wanted to (which I don't - the characters in the tv shows you've mentioned aren't aspirational in the slightest). For the record it was a scientific course, but it's irrelevant really, the only difference being I'm lucky enough with it to have a decent enough salary to attempt to save for a deposit while paying rent, something a lot of people aren't. And I don't really care if you don't believe that I and others don't waste money on all the stuff mentioned in the original post - it's true and your opinion of me based on the fictional tv you watch isn't worth a dime.
I think you basically summed up your problem with "don't you watch TOWIE Geordie Shore Made In Chelsea" bit. You're basing your opinion of younger people on fictional tv shows showing an exaggerated version of a certain well off lifestyle. In reality very few people live like that, certainly no one I'd associate with, most of us couldn't if we wanted to (which I don't - the characters in the tv shows you've mentioned aren't aspirational in the slightest). For the record it was a scientific course, but it's irrelevant really, the only difference being I'm lucky enough with it to have a decent enough salary to attempt to save for a deposit while paying rent, something a lot of people aren't. And I don't really care if you don't believe that I and others don't waste money on all the stuff mentioned in the original post - it's true and your opinion of me based on the fictional tv you watch isn't worth a dime. wormshero
  • Score: 0

8:40am Wed 4 Jun 14

The Six Million Dollar Man* says...

wormshero wrote:
I think you basically summed up your problem with "don't you watch TOWIE Geordie Shore Made In Chelsea" bit. You're basing your opinion of younger people on fictional tv shows showing an exaggerated version of a certain well off lifestyle. In reality very few people live like that, certainly no one I'd associate with, most of us couldn't if we wanted to (which I don't - the characters in the tv shows you've mentioned aren't aspirational in the slightest). For the record it was a scientific course, but it's irrelevant really, the only difference being I'm lucky enough with it to have a decent enough salary to attempt to save for a deposit while paying rent, something a lot of people aren't. And I don't really care if you don't believe that I and others don't waste money on all the stuff mentioned in the original post - it's true and your opinion of me based on the fictional tv you watch isn't worth a dime.
What utter tripe. My wife and I watch those shows and we know of some of them in Brentwood. They have made a stack on the back off the notoriety. Someone above mentioned paying as you go along. Our Godchild is doing Medical studies at 10K a year and we all chip in to pay as they are going along. The student works as well its hard but, it is working. We do not B*m off the state. Everyone family and friends are mucking together to get them an apartment, even though it may be a cheap one in not a good location. I know of two people in the area, one a single person bachelor who paid off a mortgage over 13 years by living on bread and milk only, he had a menial admin NHS job, his house on straight road is worth £225,000 I know another person who worked part time and bouts of unemployment bought their Right To Buy Flat for £14,000 and got on the ladder that way. Both of those people don't go out, drive rubbish cars, have no social life, no drinking or smoking. You have a science degree, you must have done maths, you do the math and work it out, you will need more than a "DIME" old friend to prove your worth, with the attitude of mentality you have, floating around in your grey matter pal.
[quote][p][bold]wormshero[/bold] wrote: I think you basically summed up your problem with "don't you watch TOWIE Geordie Shore Made In Chelsea" bit. You're basing your opinion of younger people on fictional tv shows showing an exaggerated version of a certain well off lifestyle. In reality very few people live like that, certainly no one I'd associate with, most of us couldn't if we wanted to (which I don't - the characters in the tv shows you've mentioned aren't aspirational in the slightest). For the record it was a scientific course, but it's irrelevant really, the only difference being I'm lucky enough with it to have a decent enough salary to attempt to save for a deposit while paying rent, something a lot of people aren't. And I don't really care if you don't believe that I and others don't waste money on all the stuff mentioned in the original post - it's true and your opinion of me based on the fictional tv you watch isn't worth a dime.[/p][/quote]What utter tripe. My wife and I watch those shows and we know of some of them in Brentwood. They have made a stack on the back off the notoriety. Someone above mentioned paying as you go along. Our Godchild is doing Medical studies at 10K a year and we all chip in to pay as they are going along. The student works as well its hard but, it is working. We do not B*m off the state. Everyone family and friends are mucking together to get them an apartment, even though it may be a cheap one in not a good location. I know of two people in the area, one a single person bachelor who paid off a mortgage over 13 years by living on bread and milk only, he had a menial admin NHS job, his house on straight road is worth £225,000 I know another person who worked part time and bouts of unemployment bought their Right To Buy Flat for £14,000 and got on the ladder that way. Both of those people don't go out, drive rubbish cars, have no social life, no drinking or smoking. You have a science degree, you must have done maths, you do the math and work it out, you will need more than a "DIME" old friend to prove your worth, with the attitude of mentality you have, floating around in your grey matter pal. The Six Million Dollar Man*
  • Score: -1

9:54am Wed 4 Jun 14

wormshero says...

I'm genuinely not sure what's wrong with my mentality in pointing out that the majority of people aren't like the characters off those tv shows, given that I've pointed out that I, and most other, recent graduates don't have the traits mentioned in the comment I was originally replying to claiming that we all spend our money on designer clothes, drink, cigarettes, run expensive cars and go on holidays. I'm even more confused why you're claiming there's something wrong with my mentality when you yourself respond with your own story that supports what I'm saying (living off of bread and milk to pay for a house). My original argument was purely that it's unfair to claim that all young people " want cars, takeaways, cigarettes, holidays, booze, designer clothes and the IKEA lifestyle to match" when that's simply not true. If you think that me not wanting any of those things (except a holiday every few years, and a trip to the pub for a few once a month or so) is a ridiculous attitude then what exactly do older people want of the younger generation?!

And fine, there's a handful of people who do well off of the stupid towie stuff - using them as an example of how post-80s people act is just niave though, especially when it's not just me giving examples of people actually living within their means to ensure they can buy a home. My issue with saving is that despite putting away a decent percentage of my salary after rent/bills/etc. (if I put away more I'd have very little to buy food with) the amount I can save is only just covering the increase in what I'd have to pay towards a deposit due to the ever increasing housing costs. We need to build more to stop house prices sky rocketing (11% a year at the minute!). Rent to buy isn't really an option given the huge waiting lists, something I'd be fairly low down anyway.
I'm genuinely not sure what's wrong with my mentality in pointing out that the majority of people aren't like the characters off those tv shows, given that I've pointed out that I, and most other, recent graduates don't have the traits mentioned in the comment I was originally replying to claiming that we all spend our money on designer clothes, drink, cigarettes, run expensive cars and go on holidays. I'm even more confused why you're claiming there's something wrong with my mentality when you yourself respond with your own story that supports what I'm saying (living off of bread and milk to pay for a house). My original argument was purely that it's unfair to claim that all young people " want cars, takeaways, cigarettes, holidays, booze, designer clothes and the IKEA lifestyle to match" when that's simply not true. If you think that me not wanting any of those things (except a holiday every few years, and a trip to the pub for a few once a month or so) is a ridiculous attitude then what exactly do older people want of the younger generation?! And fine, there's a handful of people who do well off of the stupid towie stuff - using them as an example of how post-80s people act is just niave though, especially when it's not just me giving examples of people actually living within their means to ensure they can buy a home. My issue with saving is that despite putting away a decent percentage of my salary after rent/bills/etc. (if I put away more I'd have very little to buy food with) the amount I can save is only just covering the increase in what I'd have to pay towards a deposit due to the ever increasing housing costs. We need to build more to stop house prices sky rocketing (11% a year at the minute!). Rent to buy isn't really an option given the huge waiting lists, something I'd be fairly low down anyway. wormshero
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree