70 homes planned for site off Magdalen Street

70 homes planned for site off Magdalen Street

70 homes planned for site off Magdalen Street

First published in News

A STRIP of land in Colchester town centre has been earmarked for 70 new homes.

The land, which is off Magdalen Street and behind George Williams Way, has been acquired by the Government’s Homes and Community Agency.

The land is included in Colchester Council’s local plan, which is being reviewed by the council, so no final decisions have been made.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:53pm Thu 4 Sep 14

sam vines says...

why do we keep squashing so many shoe boxes in our town
why do we keep squashing so many shoe boxes in our town sam vines
  • Score: 6

4:29pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Angry of Lexden says...

sam vines wrote:
why do we keep squashing so many shoe boxes in our town
Sam, it's for the poor people, lower orders if you like. They have to live somewhere and there is always the chance a nice new home at my expense, will help them to raise their expectations. Maybe form true family units that eat dinner together not watching east enders. But then again, it's more likely they will trash the place and start growing weed in the loft.
[quote][p][bold]sam vines[/bold] wrote: why do we keep squashing so many shoe boxes in our town[/p][/quote]Sam, it's for the poor people, lower orders if you like. They have to live somewhere and there is always the chance a nice new home at my expense, will help them to raise their expectations. Maybe form true family units that eat dinner together not watching east enders. But then again, it's more likely they will trash the place and start growing weed in the loft. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 21

10:27pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Boris says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
sam vines wrote:
why do we keep squashing so many shoe boxes in our town
Sam, it's for the poor people, lower orders if you like. They have to live somewhere and there is always the chance a nice new home at my expense, will help them to raise their expectations. Maybe form true family units that eat dinner together not watching east enders. But then again, it's more likely they will trash the place and start growing weed in the loft.
Angry, are you saying you have no deleterious and anti-social habits? If so, I don't believe you.
You should be paying higher taxes so as to bring poor people's incomes up to your level.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sam vines[/bold] wrote: why do we keep squashing so many shoe boxes in our town[/p][/quote]Sam, it's for the poor people, lower orders if you like. They have to live somewhere and there is always the chance a nice new home at my expense, will help them to raise their expectations. Maybe form true family units that eat dinner together not watching east enders. But then again, it's more likely they will trash the place and start growing weed in the loft.[/p][/quote]Angry, are you saying you have no deleterious and anti-social habits? If so, I don't believe you. You should be paying higher taxes so as to bring poor people's incomes up to your level. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Boris
  • Score: -29

8:08am Fri 5 Sep 14

jammin says...

"growing weed in the loft"

LOL
"growing weed in the loft" LOL jammin
  • Score: -6

10:53am Fri 5 Sep 14

cynicalsubber says...

Angry, they can't 'eat dinner together not watching EastEnders' because most new houses don't have space for a dining table. Sam Vimes is absolutely right, although we need a lot more homes, we don't want people squashed in inadequate space.
Angry, they can't 'eat dinner together not watching EastEnders' because most new houses don't have space for a dining table. Sam Vimes is absolutely right, although we need a lot more homes, we don't want people squashed in inadequate space. cynicalsubber
  • Score: -6

12:02pm Fri 5 Sep 14

merielc says...

Obviously Angry of Colchester is a man who doesn't like people if they can't at this time afford posh houses and the elitist lifestyle to which he so obviously aspires. Dear oh dear Angry, people need homes and apart from illegal activities and that applies to all of us, how they live in their homes is their business.
Obviously Angry of Colchester is a man who doesn't like people if they can't at this time afford posh houses and the elitist lifestyle to which he so obviously aspires. Dear oh dear Angry, people need homes and apart from illegal activities and that applies to all of us, how they live in their homes is their business. merielc
  • Score: 2

4:39pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Shrubendlad says...

Boris wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
sam vines wrote:
why do we keep squashing so many shoe boxes in our town
Sam, it's for the poor people, lower orders if you like. They have to live somewhere and there is always the chance a nice new home at my expense, will help them to raise their expectations. Maybe form true family units that eat dinner together not watching east enders. But then again, it's more likely they will trash the place and start growing weed in the loft.
Angry, are you saying you have no deleterious and anti-social habits? If so, I don't believe you.
You should be paying higher taxes so as to bring poor people's incomes up to your level.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Boris-MINUS 30/
Whats going on?
Youll never win elections if you tell folk to pay more taxes.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sam vines[/bold] wrote: why do we keep squashing so many shoe boxes in our town[/p][/quote]Sam, it's for the poor people, lower orders if you like. They have to live somewhere and there is always the chance a nice new home at my expense, will help them to raise their expectations. Maybe form true family units that eat dinner together not watching east enders. But then again, it's more likely they will trash the place and start growing weed in the loft.[/p][/quote]Angry, are you saying you have no deleterious and anti-social habits? If so, I don't believe you. You should be paying higher taxes so as to bring poor people's incomes up to your level. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.[/p][/quote]Boris-MINUS 30/ Whats going on? Youll never win elections if you tell folk to pay more taxes. Shrubendlad
  • Score: -6

5:39pm Fri 5 Sep 14

stevedawson says...

Elections whose up for election?
Elections whose up for election? stevedawson
  • Score: -3

7:06pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Boris wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
sam vines wrote:
why do we keep squashing so many shoe boxes in our town
Sam, it's for the poor people, lower orders if you like. They have to live somewhere and there is always the chance a nice new home at my expense, will help them to raise their expectations. Maybe form true family units that eat dinner together not watching east enders. But then again, it's more likely they will trash the place and start growing weed in the loft.
Angry, are you saying you have no deleterious and anti-social habits? If so, I don't believe you.
You should be paying higher taxes so as to bring poor people's incomes up to your level.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Boris, I do believe I'm pretty nigh on perfect. There are some who reckon I'm crazy - absolutely not true, and I can prove it. Last time I assisted the police service I could read the psychiatric report on the desk upside down. It said paranoid schitzophrenic with a tendency to pyromania. Nothing about being crazy. Where my paying extra tax is concerned, I would rather rely on your quotation - "from each according to their ability" - there many who have ability to earn, but chose to take the easier route to rely on my paying for them. My co employed a carpenter eight years ago. He was good, could hang a door properly, build metal stud partitions. We gave him a few jobs as a trial. He did well so we offered him a full time on the books job. He declined and explained he would lose housing benefit, and two other benefit payouts, and would have to work full time. Whereas he was much better off with the cash jobs, £250 cash Sunday job clearing rubbish on a car boot sale. There are a significant number still doing this.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sam vines[/bold] wrote: why do we keep squashing so many shoe boxes in our town[/p][/quote]Sam, it's for the poor people, lower orders if you like. They have to live somewhere and there is always the chance a nice new home at my expense, will help them to raise their expectations. Maybe form true family units that eat dinner together not watching east enders. But then again, it's more likely they will trash the place and start growing weed in the loft.[/p][/quote]Angry, are you saying you have no deleterious and anti-social habits? If so, I don't believe you. You should be paying higher taxes so as to bring poor people's incomes up to your level. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.[/p][/quote]Boris, I do believe I'm pretty nigh on perfect. There are some who reckon I'm crazy - absolutely not true, and I can prove it. Last time I assisted the police service I could read the psychiatric report on the desk upside down. It said paranoid schitzophrenic with a tendency to pyromania. Nothing about being crazy. Where my paying extra tax is concerned, I would rather rely on your quotation - "from each according to their ability" - there many who have ability to earn, but chose to take the easier route to rely on my paying for them. My co employed a carpenter eight years ago. He was good, could hang a door properly, build metal stud partitions. We gave him a few jobs as a trial. He did well so we offered him a full time on the books job. He declined and explained he would lose housing benefit, and two other benefit payouts, and would have to work full time. Whereas he was much better off with the cash jobs, £250 cash Sunday job clearing rubbish on a car boot sale. There are a significant number still doing this. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -2

7:16pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Angry of Lexden says...

merielc wrote:
Obviously Angry of Colchester is a man who doesn't like people if they can't at this time afford posh houses and the elitist lifestyle to which he so obviously aspires. Dear oh dear Angry, people need homes and apart from illegal activities and that applies to all of us, how they live in their homes is their business.
Disagree Merielc, behaviour is the foundation of success in all. Social interaction, wealth, health. Model your life on the "eastenders" behaviour and failure is guaranteed.
[quote][p][bold]merielc[/bold] wrote: Obviously Angry of Colchester is a man who doesn't like people if they can't at this time afford posh houses and the elitist lifestyle to which he so obviously aspires. Dear oh dear Angry, people need homes and apart from illegal activities and that applies to all of us, how they live in their homes is their business.[/p][/quote]Disagree Merielc, behaviour is the foundation of success in all. Social interaction, wealth, health. Model your life on the "eastenders" behaviour and failure is guaranteed. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Shrubendlad says...

stevedawson wrote:
Elections whose up for election?
Boris wants his friend Sir Bob Russell to be elected(at the age of 69) next May.
I believe that ,unless you are self employed, you shouldn't cling on to a job for more than 10 years if it means that you are blocking the next generation from having their go.
Everyone should have a chance to work, support their families and get promoted.
The Suffolk Conservatives threw out Tim Yeo who is about the same age and about 30% of the House of Commons are retiring.
[quote][p][bold]stevedawson[/bold] wrote: Elections whose up for election?[/p][/quote]Boris wants his friend Sir Bob Russell to be elected(at the age of 69) next May. I believe that ,unless you are self employed, you shouldn't cling on to a job for more than 10 years if it means that you are blocking the next generation from having their go. Everyone should have a chance to work, support their families and get promoted. The Suffolk Conservatives threw out Tim Yeo who is about the same age and about 30% of the House of Commons are retiring. Shrubendlad
  • Score: -4

7:42pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Shrubendlad says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
merielc wrote:
Obviously Angry of Colchester is a man who doesn't like people if they can't at this time afford posh houses and the elitist lifestyle to which he so obviously aspires. Dear oh dear Angry, people need homes and apart from illegal activities and that applies to all of us, how they live in their homes is their business.
Disagree Merielc, behaviour is the foundation of success in all. Social interaction, wealth, health. Model your life on the "eastenders" behaviour and failure is guaranteed.
I think youre digging youself an unfortunate hole Angry.
No one likes scroungers who take advantage of society.
But this is supposed to be a civilised country where our Health Service must be protected(Im very grateful for what they've done for me) and everyone should be allowed to live in decent accommodation.
But everyone should be expected to do their best at supporting their families. Families should be the foundation on which we build our country.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]merielc[/bold] wrote: Obviously Angry of Colchester is a man who doesn't like people if they can't at this time afford posh houses and the elitist lifestyle to which he so obviously aspires. Dear oh dear Angry, people need homes and apart from illegal activities and that applies to all of us, how they live in their homes is their business.[/p][/quote]Disagree Merielc, behaviour is the foundation of success in all. Social interaction, wealth, health. Model your life on the "eastenders" behaviour and failure is guaranteed.[/p][/quote]I think youre digging youself an unfortunate hole Angry. No one likes scroungers who take advantage of society. But this is supposed to be a civilised country where our Health Service must be protected(Im very grateful for what they've done for me) and everyone should be allowed to live in decent accommodation. But everyone should be expected to do their best at supporting their families. Families should be the foundation on which we build our country. Shrubendlad
  • Score: 8

8:16pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Shrubendlad wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
merielc wrote:
Obviously Angry of Colchester is a man who doesn't like people if they can't at this time afford posh houses and the elitist lifestyle to which he so obviously aspires. Dear oh dear Angry, people need homes and apart from illegal activities and that applies to all of us, how they live in their homes is their business.
Disagree Merielc, behaviour is the foundation of success in all. Social interaction, wealth, health. Model your life on the "eastenders" behaviour and failure is guaranteed.
I think youre digging youself an unfortunate hole Angry.
No one likes scroungers who take advantage of society.
But this is supposed to be a civilised country where our Health Service must be protected(Im very grateful for what they've done for me) and everyone should be allowed to live in decent accommodation.
But everyone should be expected to do their best at supporting their families. Families should be the foundation on which we build our country.
Shrubendlad, I'm quite frequently in a hole of some sort. But I don't understand your comment about digging a hole. From what you say we seem to have an accord on the matter of behaviour and family values. And yes. I agree with you on the NHS - it's helped me too this year. I'll let you into a secret - the two great developments of the year if my birth - first land rover and the NHS. Although as I was born early in the year my parents would still have had to pay. So my grandad got his Co from the medical Corp in the first war to deliver me!
[quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]merielc[/bold] wrote: Obviously Angry of Colchester is a man who doesn't like people if they can't at this time afford posh houses and the elitist lifestyle to which he so obviously aspires. Dear oh dear Angry, people need homes and apart from illegal activities and that applies to all of us, how they live in their homes is their business.[/p][/quote]Disagree Merielc, behaviour is the foundation of success in all. Social interaction, wealth, health. Model your life on the "eastenders" behaviour and failure is guaranteed.[/p][/quote]I think youre digging youself an unfortunate hole Angry. No one likes scroungers who take advantage of society. But this is supposed to be a civilised country where our Health Service must be protected(Im very grateful for what they've done for me) and everyone should be allowed to live in decent accommodation. But everyone should be expected to do their best at supporting their families. Families should be the foundation on which we build our country.[/p][/quote]Shrubendlad, I'm quite frequently in a hole of some sort. But I don't understand your comment about digging a hole. From what you say we seem to have an accord on the matter of behaviour and family values. And yes. I agree with you on the NHS - it's helped me too this year. I'll let you into a secret - the two great developments of the year if my birth - first land rover and the NHS. Although as I was born early in the year my parents would still have had to pay. So my grandad got his Co from the medical Corp in the first war to deliver me! Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -5

10:07pm Fri 5 Sep 14

25414nora says...

Rabbit hutches, shoe boxes, affordable housing, call it what you like.
But the overwhelming majority of young people, and some not so young people are most grateful for the opportunity to have their first home. most are gainfully employed, take pride in their new found independence, and contribute to society. There has always been the exception to the rule, a tiny few become a social problem, but that has always been the case through out history. My young grandson, his partner and baby recently began renting a starter home in high woods, and I'm absolutely delighted to see, after years of unemployment, he now has something to aim for in life. Of course anything can happen, there are no guarantees.
It's sad that some people on here can be so smug with their comments.
Rabbit hutches, shoe boxes, affordable housing, call it what you like. But the overwhelming majority of young people, and some not so young people are most grateful for the opportunity to have their first home. most are gainfully employed, take pride in their new found independence, and contribute to society. There has always been the exception to the rule, a tiny few become a social problem, but that has always been the case through out history. My young grandson, his partner and baby recently began renting a starter home in high woods, and I'm absolutely delighted to see, after years of unemployment, he now has something to aim for in life. Of course anything can happen, there are no guarantees. It's sad that some people on here can be so smug with their comments. 25414nora
  • Score: 13

12:15am Sat 6 Sep 14

Angry of Lexden says...

25414nora wrote:
Rabbit hutches, shoe boxes, affordable housing, call it what you like.
But the overwhelming majority of young people, and some not so young people are most grateful for the opportunity to have their first home. most are gainfully employed, take pride in their new found independence, and contribute to society. There has always been the exception to the rule, a tiny few become a social problem, but that has always been the case through out history. My young grandson, his partner and baby recently began renting a starter home in high woods, and I'm absolutely delighted to see, after years of unemployment, he now has something to aim for in life. Of course anything can happen, there are no guarantees.
It's sad that some people on here can be so smug with their comments.
Not smug, Nora, just really fed up with picking up the bill for "families" who don't have the self control to achieve from nothing, which I and my mates had to. Think about it, my kids are penalised because I saved to buy my house. Got taxed on my earnings, and then got taxed a second time on my pension to subsidise those who don't have the self control to organise their lives. Dont ever dare to tell me that you are proud of your offspring who are living on my kids deprivation of no holidays because we simply can't afford it because we pay a disproportionate amount if tax.
[quote][p][bold]25414nora[/bold] wrote: Rabbit hutches, shoe boxes, affordable housing, call it what you like. But the overwhelming majority of young people, and some not so young people are most grateful for the opportunity to have their first home. most are gainfully employed, take pride in their new found independence, and contribute to society. There has always been the exception to the rule, a tiny few become a social problem, but that has always been the case through out history. My young grandson, his partner and baby recently began renting a starter home in high woods, and I'm absolutely delighted to see, after years of unemployment, he now has something to aim for in life. Of course anything can happen, there are no guarantees. It's sad that some people on here can be so smug with their comments.[/p][/quote]Not smug, Nora, just really fed up with picking up the bill for "families" who don't have the self control to achieve from nothing, which I and my mates had to. Think about it, my kids are penalised because I saved to buy my house. Got taxed on my earnings, and then got taxed a second time on my pension to subsidise those who don't have the self control to organise their lives. Dont ever dare to tell me that you are proud of your offspring who are living on my kids deprivation of no holidays because we simply can't afford it because we pay a disproportionate amount if tax. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

12:46am Sat 6 Sep 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
25414nora wrote:
Rabbit hutches, shoe boxes, affordable housing, call it what you like.
But the overwhelming majority of young people, and some not so young people are most grateful for the opportunity to have their first home. most are gainfully employed, take pride in their new found independence, and contribute to society. There has always been the exception to the rule, a tiny few become a social problem, but that has always been the case through out history. My young grandson, his partner and baby recently began renting a starter home in high woods, and I'm absolutely delighted to see, after years of unemployment, he now has something to aim for in life. Of course anything can happen, there are no guarantees.
It's sad that some people on here can be so smug with their comments.
Not smug, Nora, just really fed up with picking up the bill for "families" who don't have the self control to achieve from nothing, which I and my mates had to. Think about it, my kids are penalised because I saved to buy my house. Got taxed on my earnings, and then got taxed a second time on my pension to subsidise those who don't have the self control to organise their lives. Dont ever dare to tell me that you are proud of your offspring who are living on my kids deprivation of no holidays because we simply can't afford it because we pay a disproportionate amount if tax.
And while in having a bit of a rant. I spend about an hour a night from Sunday to Thursday, making the best health packed lunches I can afford for my kids. They're mates who have multiple absent dad's. But the latest I phones and holidays over seas, have free hot lunches!
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]25414nora[/bold] wrote: Rabbit hutches, shoe boxes, affordable housing, call it what you like. But the overwhelming majority of young people, and some not so young people are most grateful for the opportunity to have their first home. most are gainfully employed, take pride in their new found independence, and contribute to society. There has always been the exception to the rule, a tiny few become a social problem, but that has always been the case through out history. My young grandson, his partner and baby recently began renting a starter home in high woods, and I'm absolutely delighted to see, after years of unemployment, he now has something to aim for in life. Of course anything can happen, there are no guarantees. It's sad that some people on here can be so smug with their comments.[/p][/quote]Not smug, Nora, just really fed up with picking up the bill for "families" who don't have the self control to achieve from nothing, which I and my mates had to. Think about it, my kids are penalised because I saved to buy my house. Got taxed on my earnings, and then got taxed a second time on my pension to subsidise those who don't have the self control to organise their lives. Dont ever dare to tell me that you are proud of your offspring who are living on my kids deprivation of no holidays because we simply can't afford it because we pay a disproportionate amount if tax.[/p][/quote]And while in having a bit of a rant. I spend about an hour a night from Sunday to Thursday, making the best health packed lunches I can afford for my kids. They're mates who have multiple absent dad's. But the latest I phones and holidays over seas, have free hot lunches! Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 2

11:26pm Sat 6 Sep 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Shrubendlad wrote:
stevedawson wrote:
Elections whose up for election?
Boris wants his friend Sir Bob Russell to be elected(at the age of 69) next May.
I believe that ,unless you are self employed, you shouldn't cling on to a job for more than 10 years if it means that you are blocking the next generation from having their go.
Everyone should have a chance to work, support their families and get promoted.
The Suffolk Conservatives threw out Tim Yeo who is about the same age and about 30% of the House of Commons are retiring.
How could this be a negative score! Or is that why I find the lib dem message in- credible. Could it be there is a gang of "wobbly vote for everything - but not quite make a decision, stuck on the fence " lib dem's sqewing the score. Or am I wrong about, (1.) lib dem's inability to make a decision, or (2.) The lib dem's inability to make a decision, or (4.) The lib dem's inability to make a decision.
[quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevedawson[/bold] wrote: Elections whose up for election?[/p][/quote]Boris wants his friend Sir Bob Russell to be elected(at the age of 69) next May. I believe that ,unless you are self employed, you shouldn't cling on to a job for more than 10 years if it means that you are blocking the next generation from having their go. Everyone should have a chance to work, support their families and get promoted. The Suffolk Conservatives threw out Tim Yeo who is about the same age and about 30% of the House of Commons are retiring.[/p][/quote]How could this be a negative score! Or is that why I find the lib dem message in- credible. Could it be there is a gang of "wobbly vote for everything - but not quite make a decision, stuck on the fence " lib dem's sqewing the score. Or am I wrong about, (1.) lib dem's inability to make a decision, or (2.) The lib dem's inability to make a decision, or (4.) The lib dem's inability to make a decision. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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