SEMMMS Refresh (Part 1) – Public Consultation on Stockport Transport Issues

[amazon]

bringing this thread back on topic - there'd be plenty of long term jobs building the A6-M60 Bypass. We'd also then have business prepared to locate here because the transport links were improved which would bring more jobs. More jobs, more tax paying locals, more council tax revenue, which means our local council can even splash out, mow a few grass verges and even dare I suggest it fill some of the potholes. Happy days

You never no

[jimblob]

But only if they can qualify for "rent guarantee insurance" (RGI) as otherwise, no private sector landlord can risk taking them on, with the delays in the court system, and the total mess that Universal Credit is......   Hence these days, it is very hard for anyone who is not in a long-term job with fixed hours, along with a 100% credit history to rent a home.

bringing this thread back on topic - there'd be plenty of long term jobs building the A6-M60 Bypass. We'd also then have business prepared to locate here because the transport links were improved which would bring more jobs. More jobs, more tax paying locals, more council tax revenue, which means our local council can even splash out, mow a few grass verges and even dare I suggest it fill some of the potholes. Happy days

[ringi]

It's those families who would benefit most if rents were to come down through a significant increase in the availability of housing.

But only if they can qualify for "rent guarantee insurance" (RGI) as otherwise, no private sector landlord can risk taking them on, with the delays in the court system, and the total mess that Universal Credit is......   Hence these days, it is very hard for anyone who is not in a long-term job with fixed hours, along with a 100% credit history to rent a home.

[Newbie1]

This is an interesting article I read this morning which talks about the problem not being a matter of simply supply not meeting demand. 
  https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/27/building-homes-britain-housing-crisis

I've also been reading about ways developers can avoid building affordable housing, and it seems like this happens quite often in Manchester unfortunately.

I do believe the remaining Greenbelt can be saved.  It just needs central and local governments to make sure that  developments on brownfield sites meet the housing needs of individuals and families in need, as well as the needs of developers and people with choices.

[Dave]

I think we need to distinguish between the rough sleepers, who are highly visible every night in Manchester, and the much greater (but less visible) number of homeless families who are housed in hostels and B&Bs because they could not afford to pay their rent.

The former are mostly individuals who are on the street because of all sorts of personal problems - relationship breakdown, losing a job, drink, drugs and, yes, mental health problems as ringi says.  And the reluctance of landlords to house such individuals is understandable.  But their numbers are relatively small - I read somewhere that there are around 100 rough sleepers on an average night in Manchester.

But the much bigger problem, but it's a less obvious one, is the dramatic increase in homeless families, who, by and large, don't have mental health problems but simply can't pay the rent.  The MEN article to which I posted a link earlier suggested that there are about 1800 children currently in temporary housing in Manchester, and that the figure is rising because of factors such as benefit cuts.

It's those families who would benefit most if rents were to come down through a significant increase in the availability of housing. 

[ringi]

I am a landlord, and if I had the choice between a property being empty and putting in someone who is currently homeless, I would choose to leave the property empty.   The issue is that I don't have the skills needed to provide the mental health support that homeless people require to turn round their lives, I also know that the NHS and local councils have very often not provided the support they told private sector landlords they would.

As it takes about 6 months to remove a tenant, with no real possibility of recovering the legal costs and lost rent etc, I can't afford to take risks - I wish I could, as clearly some homeless people would turn out to be OK tenants

[andrewbowden]

Of course, not everyone wants that to happen - property developers and landlords have a vested interest in keeping the supply down and the prices up!

Don't forget the Great British obsession with house prices!  No one wants their house price to plummet and everyone wants it up go up! 

[Dave]

Building ten times the number of proposed houses would not in itself make the slightest dent in the homeless figures.

It certainly would! It’s as simple as supply and demand. If you build lots of houses so that the supply exceeds the demand, the price will come down, and more people currently in rented accommodation will be able to afford to buy. That frees up rented accommodation, and if the supply of that starts to exceed the demand then rents will go down and fewer families will be homeless. It’s that simple.

Of course, not everyone wants that to happen - property developers and landlords have a vested interest in keeping the supply down and the prices up!

[Condate]

A key cause of homelessness is people being priced out of rented accommodation, because the demand for it exceeds the supply.   Those who oppose new housing developments should reflect on that, maybe.

Building ten times the number of proposed houses would not in itself make the slightest dent in the homeless figures. It's a much more complex issue than that. I do wonder how much homelessness is the concern which drives most of the plans for new houses, especially when you consider the sort of houses that are likely to actually be built.

[amazon]

I agree, although one could argue that said academics are merely standing on the side-lines themselves and justifying their existences rather than providing tangible solutions for the here and now. Planning should also be based on need, sometimes that can't be forecast and has to be reactive. As you've very astutely made clear in your post, levels of rough sleeping and homelessness in Manchester are increasing. I sadly don't see anything concrete in the GMSF proposals that directly address this need, certainly not in the short term, but do see far more of the £500k+ detached dwellings on Chatsworth grange eating into our green spaces based on predicted growth when the Northern Power House lands on us from Mars. You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today by hypothesising. The money invested in GMSF so far would likely have ameliorated the issue of rough sleeping had it been channelled into something more tangible. (... in my opinion and not as an academic!). 

All this started with the Bredbury bypass .and now were on to rough sleepers northern power house . wow we have progresed .

[jimblob]

It's easy to stand on the sidelines and make disparaging remarks about 'academics making wild predictions based on too many variables'.

There about 2.5 million people living in Greater Manchester.  You can't manage a city of that size without engaging in planning. Planning has to be based on forecasts.  No forecast is ever 100% accurate, but it's all we've got, and it's a lot better than not forecasting at all.

But the level of homelessness and rough sleeping in Manchester is now so high that we don't have to look ahead to the future to work out how many homes need to be built - we just need to look around us right now.

Manchester is referred to in this MEN article as 'the destitution capital of the north' https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/1800-children-homeless-city-crisis-13872161

A key cause of homelessness is people being priced out of rented accommodation, because the demand for it exceeds the supply.   Those who oppose new housing developments should reflect on that, maybe.

I agree, although one could argue that said academics are merely standing on the side-lines themselves and justifying their existences rather than providing tangible solutions for the here and now. Planning should also be based on need, sometimes that can't be forecast and has to be reactive. As you've very astutely made clear in your post, levels of rough sleeping and homelessness in Manchester are increasing. I sadly don't see anything concrete in the GMSF proposals that directly address this need, certainly not in the short term, but do see far more of the £500k+ detached dwellings on Chatsworth grange eating into our green spaces based on predicted growth when the Northern Power House lands on us from Mars. You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today by hypothesising. The money invested in GMSF so far would likely have ameliorated the issue of rough sleeping had it been channelled into something more tangible. (... in my opinion and not as an academic!). 

[Dave]

It's easy to stand on the sidelines and make disparaging remarks about 'academics making wild predictions based on too many variables'.

There about 2.5 million people living in Greater Manchester.  You can't manage a city of that size without engaging in planning. Planning has to be based on forecasts.  No forecast is ever 100% accurate, but it's all we've got, and it's a lot better than not forecasting at all.

But the level of homelessness and rough sleeping in Manchester is now so high that we don't have to look ahead to the future to work out how many homes need to be built - we just need to look around us right now.

Manchester is referred to in this MEN article as 'the destitution capital of the north' https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/1800-children-homeless-city-crisis-13872161

A key cause of homelessness is people being priced out of rented accommodation, because the demand for it exceeds the supply.   Those who oppose new housing developments should reflect on that, maybe.

[andrewbowden]

Exactly! Too many academics making wild predictions based on too many variables. We were supposed to have flying cars by now and the only place I've seen that is on Harry Potter films

Well I don't know how they got that figure.  But one thing I do know is we have lots of historical data that we could compare against.

[jimblob]

That figure comes from the draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.

Exactly! Too many academics making wild predictions based on too many variables. We were supposed to have flying cars by now and the only place I've seen that is on Harry Potter films

[amazon]

"In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes"

this figure depends on who you ask

I wont see them