Topic:	More good news..
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 08:07	QuoteAffordable houses plan revealed Proposals to build about 50 houses at a mining site close to Redruth town centre will be outlined at a public meeting on Thursday. Affordable Homes of Cornwall Ltd wants to build the flats and houses at the former Bradfords Building Supplies yard in Wesley Street. The company wants to reserve a quarter of the 51 proposed new units as "affordable homes". They will be sold at well below market value to local first-time buyers. The application currently before Kerrier District Council is for 40 one-bedroom flats, three two-bedroom houses and eight two-bedroom flats in a £5m two and three-storey development. Affordable Homes also proposes to make a financial contribution to local education services. The plans will be outlined in depth at Redruth's Wesley Memorial Hall. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/cornwall/4694988.stm There you go see, your needs are being met.
cledry_maid Posts: 1347 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 08:10	Stroppy darling - youve already discussed this proposed housing development on the affordable homes thread
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 08:22	It bears repeating.. Especially this; QuoteThey will be sold at well below market value to local first-time buyers.
cledry_maid Posts: 1347 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 08:27	Which - as we've already discussed - is mostly meaningless. If they propose to sell them at a rate which reflects local income all well and good but it's not usually the case.
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 08:30	Ah, so; QuoteThey will be sold at well below market value to local first-time buyers. isn't good enough eh? So what do you suggest, the first one to present a hundred books of green shield stamps gets one?
lyskerrys Posts: 928 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 08:48	Don't waste your typing on him, Cledry, on the subject of housing strop does the online equivalent of stick his fingers in his ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA" when anyone tells him the facts about the housing crisis here. If all of the 51 houses were affordable at local wages I'd start to get interested. "well below market value" probably means they will still only be affordable to someone on London wages, so it's pointless.
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 08:50	So even when "affordable homes" the thing you have been wanting, and posting about on this forum for years, are built, it's stil not good enough for you. Nuff said.
cledry_maid Posts: 1347 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 08:52	BECAUSE IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE BY ANY REAL DEFINITION IT JUST MEANS LOWER THAN MARKET PRICE. There - is that any clearer? Lys is right - I'm wasting my 'breath'
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 08:56	Quote BECAUSE IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE BY ANY REAL DEFINITION IT JUST MEANS LOWER THAN MARKET PRICE. hmm.. so these "affordable" homes are not going to be affordable then... How much will they cost then Cledry, seeing as you are the only one here that appears to know the cost of them?
cledry_maid Posts: 1347 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 08:59	Quote hmm.. so these "affordable" homes are not going to be affordable then... We'll have to wait and see but generally when these 'affordable' properties are unvelied the local community are left scratching their heads and wondering who did the maths Quote How much will they cost then Cledry, seeing as you are the only one here that appears to know the cost of them? Like I said - we'll have to wait and see. Don't you have anything better to do than trail your coat on a forum hoping soemone will step on it so you can argue with them?
lyskerrys Posts: 928 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 09:04	How can a company calling itself "Affordable Homes" only make a quarter of its houses "affordable"? QuoteAffordable Homes also proposes to make a financial contribution to local education services. Ah, so that's how they got the planning through.
cledry_maid Posts: 1347 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 09:06	Quote Ah, so that's how they got the planning through. Carrots are coming in more and more imaginitive ways
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 09:11	But lys has already decided that they: Quote "well below market value" probably means they will still only be affordable to someone on London wages, so it's pointless. and you state: Quote BECAUSE IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE BY ANY REAL DEFINITION IT JUST MEANS LOWER THAN MARKET PRICE So, you believe that they will not be affordable. We'll wait and see then. What "affordable" cost would you consider these should be sold at; one-bedroom flats? two-bedroom houses? two-bedroom houses? What would you say should be the maximum price, before they become "un-affordable"?
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 09:13	Quote Affordable Homes also proposes to make a financial contribution to local education services. Ah, so that's how they got the planning through. And you'd complain more if they didn't do this, no pleasing some people!
cledry_maid Posts: 1347 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 09:16	Stroppy - these issues have been covred ad infinitum in other threads, you can find all you need to know there. Otherwise you could do a bit of research with the mortgage calculator that was posted up and stats about the average income and work it out yourself. Or - shock horror - you could even come up with a new subject!
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 09:21	Seeing as you are so...reticent... to answer the question just in case these places are actually sold at "affordable" prices, (and no one here has ever stated the price they actually think that affordable homes should be sold at, so your statement above is, yet again, untrue), I'll get the ball rolling; What "affordable" cost would you consider these should be sold at; what would you say should be the maximum price, before they become "un-affordable"? one-bedroom flats? 50K two-bedroom houses? 90K two-bedroom houses? 120K Any offers?
cledry_maid Posts: 1347 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 09:25	Jaysus - you really see yourself as some kind of Perry Mason character don't you? Why don't you trot off and do something useful?
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 09:29	Why don't you answer the question? What "affordable" cost would you consider these should be sold at; what would you say should be the maximum price, before they become "un-affordable"? one-bedroom flats? two-bedroom houses? two-bedroom houses? Seeing as your so quick to announce that these will not be affordable homes, what price should they be sold at?
lyskerrys Posts: 928 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 09:48	Don't bother, Cleds. He'll have a go whatever you post.
cledry_maid Posts: 1347 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 09:50	Why do you think I haven't answered?
CJenkin Posts: 831 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 10:05	Quote What "affordable" cost would you consider these should be sold at; what would you say should be the maximum price, before they become "un-affordable"? one-bedroom flats? 50K two-bedroom houses? 90K two-bedroom houses? 120K Interesting question - affordability has to be linked to local wages. Therefore an entry property into the housing market based on below average salaries in Cornwall would have to be about 50K (3x15K+5K deposit). The same as your suggestion Stroppy. I don't follow you logic on having two prices for two bedroom houses :wink: but if you mean two bedroom flat. I think this needs to be affordable for either a couple starting out or a single going up the next stage of the ladder - 40K jump seems huge - I would go for 75K in total which is 2.5x30K salary normal mortgage for a two working couple. A two bedroom house should be 3x30K e.g. 90K. However even these figures would be too much for some so there must be other options for shared ownership. Clearly the open market in most communities are well above these prices.
Diane Posts: 789 Posted: 9.Feb 2006 - 23:54	Well I'm with stroppy on this one, I was waiting to hear what you all consider an affordable house price. C Jenkin gave us his ideas, but no-one else would give us a clue. It's a simple question isn't it? so come on, lets hear what you consider a fair price.
frenchie Posts: 1691 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 00:14	There is no scientific proof that affordable house prices are actually affordable. If you divide the number of people who believe they are affordable, by the number of people who don't and then multiply this by a pasty - you'll get a silence from the number of people who cannot accept that they may not be as bad as they first seemed. I personally think affordability is equal to the desire to be a home owner - minus the amount you are not prepared to work hard for to earn the wages needed to buy one. If you multiply this by a factor of ignorance, then you should, according to scientific method, arrive at a holiday home for ten months of the year, probably in Lyskard.
lyskerrys Posts: 928 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 00:15	Ah sod it, I can't be bothered. Message posted then deleted.
frenchie Posts: 1691 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 00:26	(Lys wrote but then couldn't be bothered so unwrote) QuoteDiane, I would do so if stroppy wasnt the sort of person who would have a go at anything I said just because I said it. If the houses are affordable at local wages, fine, if not, they might as well not build them for the use they'll be to local people. If they are they are, if they are not they are not. That's explained it for... Quote radar wrote: WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE BLINKERD?? (Lys wrote) Never heard of someone having an opinion that differs from yours? Got problems with that?
frenchie Posts: 1691 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 00:32	[quote] Never heard of someone having an opinion that differs from yours? Got problems with that? [quote] [quote] Ah sod it, I can't be bothered. Message posted then deleted.[quote] [quote]Gentlemen I rest my case[quote]
frenchie Posts: 1691 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 00:35	So, back to the serious and well debated yet infrequently answered question, (similar to how long one has studied a subject before totally dissing it) What house/flat price qualifies as affordable?
frenchie Posts: 1691 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 00:49	QuoteDon't bother, Cleds. He'll have a go whatever you post. _________________ Prove astrology works and win $1,000,000! Black (& pot) sheep and contradictory signatures.. So, affordable homes? Are they a reality? or are they avoidable?
Mike Posts: 2744 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 00:53	It seems you talk to yourself on here quite a bit, Frenchie. Affordable homes - I would think what CJenkin says is about right.
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 01:44	Quote It's a simple question isn't it? so come on, lets hear what you consider a fair price. Too risky for them Diane. These houses are being built and sold at below market value. That is what they have been wanting, and posting about, (17 threads on housing since new years day!). Now that affordable homes are being built, they are losing one of their main whinges, and they are too ashamed or cowardly to actually commit themselves to saying what they consider "affordable", incase these houses fall into that range.
Mike Posts: 2744 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 01:54	Getting a bit carried away there, Stoppygob. Affordable homes are simply worked out from a formula of earnings and mortgage requirements, with deposit money to negate in the equation
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 01:57	Not really Mike. I asked a simple question; Quote What "affordable" cost would you consider these should be sold at; what would you say should be the maximum price, before they become "un-affordable"? one-bedroom flats? two-bedroom houses? three-bedroom houses? It's very simple isn't it. I even gave what I considered reasonable, so that no one could accuse me of not doing what I asked of others. What price should these units be sold at in order for them to be considered affordable? Seeing as Lys and Cled have already forecast that they will NOT be affordable, then they should be able to give an indication of how these should be priced.
Mike Posts: 2744 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 02:04	Quote It seems you talk to yourself on here quite a bit, Frenchie. Affordable homes - I would think what CJenkin says is about right. Sorry Stroppygob, I thought you were Frenchie. gave an answer earlier on
TeamKernow Posts: 2319 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 02:08	Shelter is, like food, a primary human need and collective community asset not, in a world with a social conscience, a mere narrow focus self-enrichment portfolio item. The recovery of a meaningful year round economy in Kernow/Cornwall requires that its EXISTING primary residential housing should be accessible, available and affordable to the families and young people who actually live here, not scandalously misappropriated for secondary holiday purposes. Kernow/Cornwall is awash with 'affordable' housing scammers. These scams, rarely 100% and often merely 20-30%'affordable' and therefore,by overall definition 'unaffordable',just prop up the iniquities caused by laissez faire 'free' market primary resource mismanagement, push full-time residents into peripheral high ground new-build ghettos adjacent to winter ghost villages, overload infrastructure, the environment and services and exacerbate the potential for surface water flooding to long bedded in dwellings and settlements downstream. Look at Truro-it is already a mis-planned congestion nightmare and yet the crazy notion of adding another 4,000 new and actually unnecessary houses is proposed. No, it is high time and long overdue that local authorities and planners in Kernow/Cornwall prioritised the best interests of their full time residents by Zoning for residence and Zoning for holidays accommodation such as hotels, B&Bs, guest houses, holiday parks, camp sites etc. This is a basic planning principle for any authority with its community's well-being as its focus and primary obligation: 'This is where our people live; this is where our holiday visitors stay'. There is no social value nor moral virtue in long established villages and hamlets being largely empty through the winter merely for the convenience of rich non-residents exercising their 'freedom of choice' and thereby denying any true freedom of choice for the young people of Kernow/Cornwall who wish to remain and make new life in the land of their birth or upbringing but are unable to even secure a modest independent roof over their heads. It is fanciful in the extreme to think that Kernow/Cornwall's wild and woolly winter weather will ever appeal to sufficient non-special interest numbers to make off-peak tourism a seriously significant and reliable contributor to its GDP. The focus for Kernow/Cornwall's economic future should be an EMBARGO on ALL new house building in tandem with firm and determined EXISTING primary housing stock recovery for full time occupation by committed full time residents and the building of a REAL economy drawing on a broad, demographically balanced, stable and contented population. The swamping Disneyfication of Kernow/Cornwall with plastic novelty theme parks and associated tarmac and concrete needs to be arrested and reversed and progressively replaced with sustainable, meaningful REAL life, REAL work and REAL economics that serve the community's year round needs.
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 10.Feb 2006 - 03:19	No probs Mike.
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 14.Feb 2006 - 04:12	What "affordable" cost would you consider these should be sold at; what would you say should be the maximum price, before they become "un-affordable"? one-bedroom flats? two-bedroom houses? three-bedroom houses? Still awaiting an answer.
CJenkin Posts: 831 Posted: 14.Feb 2006 - 08:57	Stroppy - I think I gave you an answer. Affordability is limited by modal salaries and multiples of that for borrowing from mortgage companies and the likelihood of small deposits for first time buyers. Any property over 100k becomes unaffordable due to the maths involved, whatever the size might be.
Knocker Posts: 4 Posted: 14.Feb 2006 - 18:28	There is no definition on how much an affordable home should cost, when a developer signs up for providing 'affordable housing' this in reality only means that a certain number of dwellings on the development are signed up to a section 106 agreement that ensures that only people that are eligible to buy the property under the terms of the 106 agreement can purchase the property, and in turn they can only sell to people elligible under the terms of the 106 agreement. This means that the only reason these units are 'affordable' is because they are availableto a limited audience, and they will sell for whatever that market will provide. In the real world an 'affordable' home for a young couple in cornwall should be under £100000, this rarely happens, with some exceptions
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 15.Feb 2006 - 04:58	Quote Any property over 100k becomes unaffordable due to the maths involved, whatever the size might be. No, any property may become "unaffordable" due to the wage a person earns and the price set. This was not the question asked. Quote In the real world an 'affordable' home for a young couple in cornwall should be under £100000, this rarely happens, with some exceptions Again, avoids the question; What "affordable" cost would you consider these should be sold at; what would you say should be the maximum price, before they become "un-affordable"? one-bedroom flats? two-bedroom houses? three-bedroom houses? It's not Chinese algebra or anything! All I am asking is for people to give what they would consider as a reasonable price for these properties to be considered "affordable". Let's try it another way, seeing as those that put down every attempt to build affordable homes cannot bring themselves to commit to an answer. An association wants to build homes in Cornwall for those locals who cannot compete in the housing market. They propose to build one-bedroom flats, two-bedroom houses, and three-bedroom houses. They need to know how much they should sell these for, to ensure that the target group is not priced out of buying them. The members of C24 are the committee who will define the prices of these buildings; please give your maximum price for each dwelling to be sold at; one-bedroom flats? two-bedroom houses? three-bedroom houses?
GolowDydh Posts: 392 Posted: 15.Feb 2006 - 07:42	For what Kerrier defined as the average household income in the area, affordable would have to be £60,000 but as they go on to say 56% are on below average incomes. It is a strange thing but if you buy a house instead of a flat your income does not magically go up so the answer must be one-bedroom flats £60,000 two-bedroom houses £60,000 three-bedroom houses £60,000 As for the 56% on below average income? :cry:
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 15.Feb 2006 - 07:52	Surely though there should be some differential? For instance, isn't a two bedroom house more likely to be needed by a couple with kids, and if they are a couple then there's the possibility of joint income. Also, the cost of building should be taken into consideration.
chris Posts: 1405 Posted: 15.Feb 2006 - 08:42	Affordable houses are potentilally the slums of the future. I just read an article about some built in Bristol which had people queing for 8 hours to put a depost on an as of yet unbuilt house. QuoteThe properties are cheaper because of the lightweight steel that will be used in construction, and because residents will share outdoor areas instead of owning their own garden http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9553-2038971,00.html Prices range from £60,000-£130,000 - seems like a huge risk to buy somewhere that sounds so undesirable, especially when considering house prices have gone up at an unprecedented rate (what goes up and all that!) I think I'll sit this one out and carry on renting
Kattell Posts: 259 Posted: 15.Feb 2006 - 09:34	QuoteSurely though there should be some differential? For instance, isn't a two bedroom house more likely to be needed by a couple with kids, and if they are a couple then there's the possibility of joint income. Not once you factor in full time child care if children are below school age and part time childcare for those who attend school. Full time childcare works out at about £550 per month per child, there is Family Credit available but as it's means tested if both parents are working it won't be much.
GolowDydh Posts: 392 Posted: 15.Feb 2006 - 09:59	Quote Surely though there should be some differential? For instance, isn't a two bedroom house more likely to be needed by a couple with kids, and if they are a couple then there's the possibility of joint income. Pedantic I know but you asked what was 'affordable', as I recall I did not get a rise because we had a child, other than statutory child benefit, which went no where near the extra costs incurred. Affordability is based on income and unless you can get income from the additional rooms the size of property makes no difference
t Posts: 69 Posted: 15.Feb 2006 - 23:54	I called Affordable Homes of Cornwall Ltd to find some details and from what they told me they are doing more than most developers to land poeple on low incomes a home. It's works on a aheadstart4U Discount load giving you the chance to purchase a home while only on low income. check it out http://www.aheadstart4u.com/index.htm I still think we need jobs that pay, but this looks agood thing. I would like someone to call them and post what they think. Affordable Homes of Cornwall Ltd 01209313323
Diane Posts: 789 Posted: 16.Feb 2006 - 00:06	When I had my children we had no tax credits, no child care, no help to bring our children up except for a measley amount of family allowance. Why do people expect the tax payer to bring up their child? If mum's want to work, that's their choice, but don't expect the rest of us to pick up the bill for child care. :shock:
frenchie Posts: 1691 Posted: 16.Feb 2006 - 00:20	I've never understood why family allowance has been available to every family. Even if you're a millionaire you can get it.... :!:
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 16.Feb 2006 - 02:52	Quote It's works on a aheadstart4U Discount load giving you the chance to purchase a home while only on low income. check it out http://www.aheadstart4u.com/index.htm I still think we need jobs that pay, but this looks agood thing. NO it's not!! Don't you know these homes wil only be affordable to people on London wages, and only key workers? It must be true, I read it here...
t Posts: 69 Posted: 16.Feb 2006 - 14:19	stroppygob How much should a 1st home cost if your living in Cornwall?
lyskerrys Posts: 928 Posted: 16.Feb 2006 - 14:31	You're right frenchie, it's an anachronism, like automatic winter fuel allowances even for pensioners who don't need it, and people who break their leg yomping across the hills in South Wales with the ATC while on permanent disability benefit. And why are pensioners complaining about their Council Tax bills? If they can't afford to pay, they can get means tested help with it. If they aren't eligible for that, then they should be able to pay it. - This happened to someone I know. Shop a scrounger, anyone?
Kattell Posts: 259 Posted: 16.Feb 2006 - 18:47	QuoteAnd why are pensioners complaining about their Council Tax bills? If they can't afford to pay, they can get means tested help with it. If they aren't eligible for that, then they should be able to pay it. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure there is no means tested benefit for council tax, that's the complaint. Because council tax is levvied by the market value of your house, not your income, it's often the pensioners who come off worse as the difference between their income and house value is generally greater than most.
GolowDydh Posts: 392 Posted: 16.Feb 2006 - 19:58	You can get Council Tax Benefit if you are prepared to fill in a multipage form with full details of your income, any savings, who lives with you, their income and savings etc... Many people who are entitled, do not claim it as they see the form as intrusive, which being for a means tested benefit it is. Older people in particular often have put money aside for emergencies or their funeral; they were taught to be prudent and may have a few thousand in the bank, so they get nothing until they have spent nearly all their savings. Others may have spent everything on wine women and song, have two cars, a boat and a caravan and still qualify for benefit. Then government wonders why people are not saving for their retirement :?
frenchie Posts: 1691 Posted: 16.Feb 2006 - 20:53	You're allowed around £3000 in savings before it affects any claims for council tax rebates. It's pretty hard to get council tax rebates unless your one one of the usual benefits; job seekers allowance, working tax credits, disability etc. being on a low wage/income is the hardest one...
xxxxxx Posts: 2305 Posted: 17.Feb 2006 - 02:53	Quote You can get Council Tax Benefit if you are prepared to fill in a multipage form with full details of your income, any savings, who lives with you, their income and savings etc... Many people who are entitled, do not claim it as they see the form as intrusive, which being for a means tested benefit it is. It's still free money for filling in some forms, gawd the lazy bugers are to idle to pick up a pen now!
lyskerrys Posts: 928 Posted: 17.Feb 2006 - 11:32	Tragic, innit?
Diane Posts: 789 Posted: 17.Feb 2006 - 22:41	Yes they [ the powers that be] make you do a little form filling to claim, hoping you won't bother. When I went into hospital in Canberra, I found out I could claim for travel and accomodation.because i was classed as an isolated patient. The doctors never told me even though they had the forms at the surgery. I claimed, but I had get the surgeon and GP to sign also had to prove that I couldn't claim from my health fund. A lot of running around but I did get a reasonal amount of money back.