Repeal of CPO & Pathfinder Housing Demolition powers

The last Government eroded protection for private householders from enforced eviction via Compulsory Purchase Order on their homes.

The new Homes and Communities Agency quango no longer has to show land is derelict and underused or prove CPO is essential for the public interest.

All the authority now has to say is they want the property for 'regeneration', allowing government agencies to assemble almost any home or land at will, with only token rights of appeal, undermining the sanctity of individual ownership our society is based on.

In recent years, some 95% of housing CPOs have been granted, with the system overwhelmingly skewed against individuals trying to fight demolition of their neighbourhoods.

The government should shift the balance of regeneration back in favour of local communities, allowing 3rd party rights of objection to applications not conforming with democratically produced local plans, and blocking area-wide housing CPO powers that have been abused to bully home owners without leading to any examples of successful regeneration.

CPO should only be used where an owner is blighting the area, e.g. by leaving a property derelict; OR where a plan of clearly wider interest like a new rail link or refurbishment programme necessitates it.

It should also only ever be used once independent arbitration over fair values has been unsuccessful.

Such a draconian power should not be on offer via back room deals with developers who really like the look of your house – this has encouraged public sector corruption.

 

Why is this idea important?

The last Government eroded protection for private householders from enforced eviction via Compulsory Purchase Order on their homes.

The new Homes and Communities Agency quango no longer has to show land is derelict and underused or prove CPO is essential for the public interest.

All the authority now has to say is they want the property for 'regeneration', allowing government agencies to assemble almost any home or land at will, with only token rights of appeal, undermining the sanctity of individual ownership our society is based on.

In recent years, some 95% of housing CPOs have been granted, with the system overwhelmingly skewed against individuals trying to fight demolition of their neighbourhoods.

The government should shift the balance of regeneration back in favour of local communities, allowing 3rd party rights of objection to applications not conforming with democratically produced local plans, and blocking area-wide housing CPO powers that have been abused to bully home owners without leading to any examples of successful regeneration.

CPO should only be used where an owner is blighting the area, e.g. by leaving a property derelict; OR where a plan of clearly wider interest like a new rail link or refurbishment programme necessitates it.

It should also only ever be used once independent arbitration over fair values has been unsuccessful.

Such a draconian power should not be on offer via back room deals with developers who really like the look of your house – this has encouraged public sector corruption.

 

Affordable Housing

The current arrangement under S106 of the Town and country legislation for provision of affordable house does not work.  Fewer and fewer housing is built which is affordable.  In addition, where it is built, it only replaces units which are sold by housing associations and councils – just look at the auction lists.

In london, there are over 30,000 units which have been empty for more than one year which require repairs (Empty property Registers).  One council estimates that an average cost of repair and bring back to use is £27,000 per unit.  For a new unit the taxpayer pays around £70000 per unit.  So it does not make sense to allow RSLs etc to sell old units requiring repairs and than ask the state to grant aid £70,000 to buy new units. 

For council or social housing needing repairs, we should introducing a scheme where people on waiting lists are allowed to occupy and encouraged to carry out the works in a rent free period (works well in the private sector).

The current system discourages people who want to build social housing from doing so as Council;s insist that social housing can only be provided by a registered social landlord.  A large amount of social housing has come from business or people who want to use their wealth for the weakest in society.    it discourages today's rowntrees, peabody etc.

Since 2007 the market value of housing has dropped by 30%.  this was incidently the discount for affordable housing in 2007 i.e. the cost of land was excluded in the purchase cost of the affordable housing unit.  Today, the same property is available at the discounted price.

Removal of (or suspension) of affordable housing requirements, will encourage the building industry to re-start, providing both jobs and homes.

The government would be better off applying a permissions levy of say £80 per sq.m – it will release around £22-£30bn which can be used to buy up private sector housing or build new ones on council owned land.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The current arrangement under S106 of the Town and country legislation for provision of affordable house does not work.  Fewer and fewer housing is built which is affordable.  In addition, where it is built, it only replaces units which are sold by housing associations and councils – just look at the auction lists.

In london, there are over 30,000 units which have been empty for more than one year which require repairs (Empty property Registers).  One council estimates that an average cost of repair and bring back to use is £27,000 per unit.  For a new unit the taxpayer pays around £70000 per unit.  So it does not make sense to allow RSLs etc to sell old units requiring repairs and than ask the state to grant aid £70,000 to buy new units. 

For council or social housing needing repairs, we should introducing a scheme where people on waiting lists are allowed to occupy and encouraged to carry out the works in a rent free period (works well in the private sector).

The current system discourages people who want to build social housing from doing so as Council;s insist that social housing can only be provided by a registered social landlord.  A large amount of social housing has come from business or people who want to use their wealth for the weakest in society.    it discourages today's rowntrees, peabody etc.

Since 2007 the market value of housing has dropped by 30%.  this was incidently the discount for affordable housing in 2007 i.e. the cost of land was excluded in the purchase cost of the affordable housing unit.  Today, the same property is available at the discounted price.

Removal of (or suspension) of affordable housing requirements, will encourage the building industry to re-start, providing both jobs and homes.

The government would be better off applying a permissions levy of say £80 per sq.m – it will release around £22-£30bn which can be used to buy up private sector housing or build new ones on council owned land.

 

 

 

Social Housing Tenants To Live Rent Free after 25 years of rental Payment.

This proposal would allow social housing tenants to live in social housing rent free after a total of 25 years of rent payments.

After the tenant dies, the rent payments would then continue, even if the tenancy is taken over by family members.

This would bring Social Housing tenants inline with Mortgage holders, but still of course at a disadvantage because obviously the mortgage holders would own the property at the end of 25 years and this proposal would mean the Social Housing home would still remain the property of the landlord at the end of 25 years but allow the tenant to live a rent free retirement.

I think this would be fair on the tenant as they would of paid a lot of money over 25 years and with the current situation they get nothing back. This proposal gives them something back and it would probably improve rent payments amongst the tenants as their would be something to aim for.

Why is this idea important?

This proposal would allow social housing tenants to live in social housing rent free after a total of 25 years of rent payments.

After the tenant dies, the rent payments would then continue, even if the tenancy is taken over by family members.

This would bring Social Housing tenants inline with Mortgage holders, but still of course at a disadvantage because obviously the mortgage holders would own the property at the end of 25 years and this proposal would mean the Social Housing home would still remain the property of the landlord at the end of 25 years but allow the tenant to live a rent free retirement.

I think this would be fair on the tenant as they would of paid a lot of money over 25 years and with the current situation they get nothing back. This proposal gives them something back and it would probably improve rent payments amongst the tenants as their would be something to aim for.

Window Scrappage Scheme – Housing Association Share

I am a shared owner (50%) of a flat with Thames Valley Charitable Housing Association.  If I have the money to purchase the whole property, I would not opt for this scheme.   

Shared owners pay monthly rent to Housing Associations and owned a percentage of their properties.  Now, with the window scrappage scheme, the Housing Association is leaving to us to bear up the cost of changing the windows.  Is there a law on housing associations operations – shared costs in improvement to go along with the government's energy saving plans – subsidy of £2,500?  Housing Associations should maintain the building including windows – consider extermal parts of a property.  It is unfair when the Housing Associations are not paying full or part of the costs.  They have the priority to sell the property when we give up anytime before we can purchase 100% of the property.

Why is this idea important?

I am a shared owner (50%) of a flat with Thames Valley Charitable Housing Association.  If I have the money to purchase the whole property, I would not opt for this scheme.   

Shared owners pay monthly rent to Housing Associations and owned a percentage of their properties.  Now, with the window scrappage scheme, the Housing Association is leaving to us to bear up the cost of changing the windows.  Is there a law on housing associations operations – shared costs in improvement to go along with the government's energy saving plans – subsidy of £2,500?  Housing Associations should maintain the building including windows – consider extermal parts of a property.  It is unfair when the Housing Associations are not paying full or part of the costs.  They have the priority to sell the property when we give up anytime before we can purchase 100% of the property.

Housing, Benefits & Jobs

Having had the misfortune of being made redundant through ill health last November and also being made homeless for part of this year, I have had to hunt high and low for somewhere to live and it has been far from being easy!

The biggest problem with being unemployed, is the simple fact that a great many landlords do not accept DSS tenants. Look at most adverts for property that is available to rent and you will see the words NO DSS attached to the end of the advert. 

Having researched the problem myself, I have discovered that there is a serious level of discrimination towards those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Your government may be looking to cut benefits in order to reduce the national debt, but for someone like myself who is desperate to get back in to work and also done their damned hardest to get off the street, benefits are vital until new employment can be found. By councils delaying benefits or constantly messing people around, they are adding even more stress to what is already a difficult time.

Yes, the benefits system needs a re-think and yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are a hell of a lot of people who need it, that are struggling to survive! 

I am on Job Seekers Allowance of £65 per week. £7.65 per week  is deducted from that because I had no choice except to apply for a Social Fund Loan in order to be able to get the house I am now living in. This leaves me with just over £57 a week to survive on. Once I pay for electric, gas and food, I am left with virtually nothing. I do not own a television and even if I did, I would not be able to afford a licence! I have no car, and yet again if I did, I could not afford to run it! 

What I am asking is that the government start to look at the reasons why the people on DSS are struggling to find employment…. is it because of a lack of jobs? A lack of skills? There could be any number of reasons. 

In my particular case, I was made redundant through ill health last year, since making a recovery, I have applied for over 180 jobs since March this year. Out of the 180 jobs I have applied for, I have had exactly 8 letters telling me I was not suitable for the position or was not qualified enough and I have been asked to one (1) interview! The rest I have not heard anything from! So as a part of looking at the reasons why people are struggling to find employment, look at the jobs which are being advertised! 

I have been registered with Jobs Today, Monster and several other websites. Since registering, I have checked them daily and all I see is a repeat of the same adverts by the same companies with very little difference elsewhere. Many of these companies when you read their adverts often talk about career prospects within the company and how you can advance through the ranks. If this is the case, how come so many of the companies advertising these claims of fabulous career prospects are advertising elsewhere…why are they not promoting their current staff to the managerial jobs which dominate the Jobs website pages and replacing the staff who are promoted?

Why is this idea important?

Having had the misfortune of being made redundant through ill health last November and also being made homeless for part of this year, I have had to hunt high and low for somewhere to live and it has been far from being easy!

The biggest problem with being unemployed, is the simple fact that a great many landlords do not accept DSS tenants. Look at most adverts for property that is available to rent and you will see the words NO DSS attached to the end of the advert. 

Having researched the problem myself, I have discovered that there is a serious level of discrimination towards those who are unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Your government may be looking to cut benefits in order to reduce the national debt, but for someone like myself who is desperate to get back in to work and also done their damned hardest to get off the street, benefits are vital until new employment can be found. By councils delaying benefits or constantly messing people around, they are adding even more stress to what is already a difficult time.

Yes, the benefits system needs a re-think and yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are a hell of a lot of people who need it, that are struggling to survive! 

I am on Job Seekers Allowance of £65 per week. £7.65 per week  is deducted from that because I had no choice except to apply for a Social Fund Loan in order to be able to get the house I am now living in. This leaves me with just over £57 a week to survive on. Once I pay for electric, gas and food, I am left with virtually nothing. I do not own a television and even if I did, I would not be able to afford a licence! I have no car, and yet again if I did, I could not afford to run it! 

What I am asking is that the government start to look at the reasons why the people on DSS are struggling to find employment…. is it because of a lack of jobs? A lack of skills? There could be any number of reasons. 

In my particular case, I was made redundant through ill health last year, since making a recovery, I have applied for over 180 jobs since March this year. Out of the 180 jobs I have applied for, I have had exactly 8 letters telling me I was not suitable for the position or was not qualified enough and I have been asked to one (1) interview! The rest I have not heard anything from! So as a part of looking at the reasons why people are struggling to find employment, look at the jobs which are being advertised! 

I have been registered with Jobs Today, Monster and several other websites. Since registering, I have checked them daily and all I see is a repeat of the same adverts by the same companies with very little difference elsewhere. Many of these companies when you read their adverts often talk about career prospects within the company and how you can advance through the ranks. If this is the case, how come so many of the companies advertising these claims of fabulous career prospects are advertising elsewhere…why are they not promoting their current staff to the managerial jobs which dominate the Jobs website pages and replacing the staff who are promoted?