Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: admin on August 24, 2017, 06:53:03 AM
-
The council are consulting on a "refreshed" SEMMMS Strategy:
SEMMMS Refresh (Part 1) – Public Consultation on Stockport Transport Issues and Options
The Council has today begun a public consultation on the SEMMM Strategy Refresh (Part 1) Stockport Transport Issues and Options. The consultation will be running from today (Monday 21st August) until Sunday 8th October. You are invited to view the consultation documents and submit your comments here. (https://www.stockport.gov.uk/showcase/stockport-local-plan)
Background to the Consultation
The original South East Manchester Multi-Modal (SEMMM) Strategy (http://www.semmms.info/semmms/strategy/) was first published in 2001 and outlined a 20 year transport plan for the South East Manchester area. The document is in the process of being reviewed by the Council and its partners, to refresh the strategy and approach up to 2040. The review of the SEMMM Strategy will take account of both what has been achieved since 2001, including delivery of A6MARR, (http://www.semmms.info/semmms/about-the-scheme/) integrated transport corridors, and pedestrian and cycling improvements, but also the changing local context based on proposed housing growth in neighbouring areas and the emerging Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/GMSF) (GMSF).
As an initial stage in the process, Stockport Council is seeking the views of the local community on transport issues in Stockport and potential options which could be delivered to address these. An Issues and Options paper has been produced which focuses exclusively on transport issues in Stockport and considers how these issues might change over the next 20 years. The paper identifies the emerging vision and priorities for the SEMMM strategy and identifies the potential solutions which could be delivered in Stockport.
We would like feedback from Stockport residents and businesses on the Issues and Options paper to understand whether: The key transport issues in the borough have been identified
- The identified potential options are the right kinds of interventions
- There are any other potential options which could be included
Next Steps
The comments received during the consultation on the Issues and Options paper will be considered as part of the refresh of the SEMMM strategy. This initial stage of consultation will be followed by further dialogue and engagement with partners, and testing and evaluation of the potential options in order to identify a Preferred Strategy which will be put forward for further public consultation in early 2018.
How do I comment?
We very much want to hear the views of as many people as possible to help us develop a refreshed SEMMM Strategy. The SEMMMS Refresh Stockport Transport Issues and Options Paper is available to view on the Council’s website at www.stockport.gov.uk/localplan (http://www.stockport.gov.uk/localplan).
The Council is keen to promote the submission of comments electronically and encourages anyone with appropriate facilities to make their responses in this way. Comments can be submitted online at www.stockport.gov.uk/localplan (http://www.stockport.gov.uk/localplan).
Hard copies of the Issues and Options Paper and accompanying questionnaires will also be available to view at the Council’s main reception at Fred Perry House on Edward Street (between 8:30am and 5pm Monday to Thursday and between 8:30am and 4:30pm on Fridays), and at all libraries in Stockport during their regular opening hours. Completed questionnaires should be handed to library staff or can be posted to:
SEMMM Strategy Refresh
C/o Local Plan Team
Services to Place
Stockport Council
Stopford House
Piccadilly
Stockport SK1 3XE
If you have any questions about the consultation, please email transportation@stockport.gov.uk
-
The council are consulting on a "refreshed" SEMMMS Strategy:
SEMMMS Refresh (Part 1) – Public Consultation on Stockport Transport Issues and Options
The Council has today begun a public consultation on the SEMMM Strategy Refresh (Part 1) Stockport Transport Issues and Options. The consultation will be running from today (Monday 21st August) until Sunday 8th October. You are invited to view the consultation documents and submit your comments here. (https://www.stockport.gov.uk/showcase/stockport-local-plan)
Background to the Consultation
The original South East Manchester Multi-Modal (SEMMM) Strategy (http://www.semmms.info/semmms/strategy/) was first published in 2001 and outlined a 20 year transport plan for the South East Manchester area. The document is in the process of being reviewed by the Council and its partners, to refresh the strategy and approach up to 2040. The review of the SEMMM Strategy will take account of both what has been achieved since 2001, including delivery of A6MARR, (http://www.semmms.info/semmms/about-the-scheme/) integrated transport corridors, and pedestrian and cycling improvements, but also the changing local context based on proposed housing growth in neighbouring areas and the emerging Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/GMSF) (GMSF).
As an initial stage in the process, Stockport Council is seeking the views of the local community on transport issues in Stockport and potential options which could be delivered to address these. An Issues and Options paper has been produced which focuses exclusively on transport issues in Stockport and considers how these issues might change over the next 20 years. The paper identifies the emerging vision and priorities for the SEMMM strategy and identifies the potential solutions which could be delivered in Stockport.
We would like feedback from Stockport residents and businesses on the Issues and Options paper to understand whether: The key transport issues in the borough have been identified
- The identified potential options are the right kinds of interventions
- There are any other potential options which could be included
Next Steps
The comments received during the consultation on the Issues and Options paper will be considered as part of the refresh of the SEMMM strategy. This initial stage of consultation will be followed by further dialogue and engagement with partners, and testing and evaluation of the potential options in order to identify a Preferred Strategy which will be put forward for further public consultation in early 2018.
How do I comment?
We very much want to hear the views of as many people as possible to help us develop a refreshed SEMMM Strategy. The SEMMMS Refresh Stockport Transport Issues and Options Paper is available to view on the Council’s website at www.stockport.gov.uk/localplan (http://www.stockport.gov.uk/localplan).
The Council is keen to promote the submission of comments electronically and encourages anyone with appropriate facilities to make their responses in this way. Comments can be submitted online at www.stockport.gov.uk/localplan (http://www.stockport.gov.uk/localplan).
Hard copies of the Issues and Options Paper and accompanying questionnaires will also be available to view at the Council’s main reception at Fred Perry House on Edward Street (between 8:30am and 5pm Monday to Thursday and between 8:30am and 4:30pm on Fridays), and at all libraries in Stockport during their regular opening hours. Completed questionnaires should be handed to library staff or can be posted to:
SEMMM Strategy Refresh
C/o Local Plan Team
Services to Place
Stockport Council
Stopford House
Piccadilly
Stockport SK1 3XE
If you have any questions about the consultation, please email transportation@stockport.gov.uk
Is there anyway of Downloading copy of opinions paper .
-
Is there anyway of Downloading copy of opinions paper .
Not sure what you mean by Opinions Paper Amazon.
Is this it? http://stockport-consult.objective.co.uk/file/4631708
-
I think Amazon must mean the 'options paper'.
-
I think Amazon must mean the 'options paper'.
That seems to be called the "Issues" paper on the web site but is sometimes referred to as Issues and Options.
All the documents available for download as pdfs are listed here:
http://stockport-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/localplan/slpip
-
I think Amazon must mean the 'options paper'.
Yes thanks .
-
That seems to be called the "Issues" paper on the web site but is sometimes referred to as Issues and Options.
All the documents available for download as pdfs are listed here:
http://stockport-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/localplan/slpip
Thank you .
-
The next stage part 2 is out for consultation http://www.semmms.info/semmms/strategy/
see our news item here www.hazelgroveconservatives.org.uk/news/semmms-refresh-consultation
-
Suddenly rising up the agenda it seems is a single carriageway “High Lane and Disley Relief Road”, specifically linking “Torkington and Newtown”.
I can’t argue it’s needed, especially if the A6-M60 goes ahead, but how and where without a billion pound tunnel or inventing vehicle teleportation is another story. For High Lane it could bring in mass infill housebuilding on adjacent land by the back door, for Strines and the Goyt Valley below Disley it could be environmentally devastating. Remember the old, old plan for this bypass that’d fly up over the highest point of Marple Ridge and down to cross right past the canal and Peeres Cottages? :o
Suddenly finally building that damn tram link into Stockport seems achievable!
-
There are many excellent ideas in the document. The A6-M60 bypass is not one of them however, and the report admits it will lead to more traffic and require yet another bypass to be built.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=944622635707518&id=544896215680164
-
There are many excellent ideas in the document. The A6-M60 bypass is not one of them however, and the report admits it will lead to more traffic and require yet another bypass to be built.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=944622635707518&id=544896215680164
The sooner it is built the better never mind the bluebells
-
@amazon you seem fixated upon bluebells since I mentioned the group walk along the route of the proposed bypass a while ago, which happens to be called the annual bluebell walk, as it happens in May when the bluebells are out.
Those of us who oppose the bypass do so for many reasons. The bluebells are very low down on the list.
Roads lead to more traffic. More traffic leads to increased air pollution and climate damage. Increased air pollution leads to serious health problems which places even more demand upon our massively underfunded NHS. I suspect that those most at risk from air pollution are likely to be poorer, and less likely to be able to pay for healthcare should this become necessary in the future when the NHS is totally destroyed.
There have been reports published recently which show how green spaces improve our health and mental well-being. Here in Marple, we have an abundance of green spaces which aren't currently under threat as far as I know. I don't think that people living closer to the route are as lucky.
The report says on p69 that traffic will increase if the A6-M60 bypass is built and a High Lane/Disley bypass will be needed to alleviate this. I can see that this would facilitate the mass housing development in High Lane on the Greenbelt. 4000 extra homes in High Lane would then generate more traffic as those people are highly unlikely to be working in High Lane. The benefits of the bypass would quickly dissipate, and there will be calls for yet another bypass unless we start to think about things differently.
The habitat of a wide range of wildlife will be destroyed by the A6-M60 bypass and there are several sites of special interest along the route. There is plenty of information on the Goyt SOS Facebook page and Stockport Bypass Facts website if anyone wants to know more.
-
@amazon you seem fixated upon bluebells since I mentioned the group walk along the route of the proposed bypass a while ago, which happens to be called the annual bluebell walk, as it happens in May when the bluebells are out.
Those of us who oppose the bypass do so for many reasons. The bluebells are very low down on the list.
Roads lead to more traffic. More traffic leads to increased air pollution and climate damage. Increased air pollution leads to serious health problems which places even more demand upon our massively underfunded NHS. I suspect that those most at risk from air pollution are likely to be poorer, and less likely to be able to pay for healthcare should this become necessary in the future when the NHS is totally destroyed.
There have been reports published recently which show how green spaces improve our health and mental well-being. Here in Marple, we have an abundance of green spaces which aren't currently under threat as far as I know. I don't think that people living closer to the route are as lucky.
The report says on p69 that traffic will increase if the A6-M60 bypass is built and a High Lane/Disley bypass will be needed to alleviate this. I can see that this would facilitate the mass housing development in High Lane on the Greenbelt. 4000 extra homes in High Lane would then generate more traffic as those people are highly unlikely to be working in High Lane. The benefits of the bypass would quickly dissipate, and there will be calls for yet another bypass unless we start to think about things differently.
The habitat of a wide range of wildlife will be destroyed by the A6-M60 bypass and there are several sites of special interest along the route. There is plenty of information on the Goyt SOS Facebook page and Stockport Bypass Facts website if anyone wants to know more.
So how are you going to alevenate the trafic jams at bredbury and marple in a morning .
-
I think we have discussed this before... improve public transport, car share schemes, cycle and walking paths. Basically reduce dependency upon car usage. There are many excellent suggestions in the SEMMS refresh consultation.
New housing developments also need to be built close to where people work. New commuter villages such as the development proposed in High Lane are absolutely the wrong way to address the housing problems we face.
-
I think we have discussed this before... improve public transport, car share schemes, cycle and walking paths. Basically reduce dependency upon car usage. There are many excellent suggestions in the SEMMS refresh consultation.
New housing developments also need to be built close to where people work. New commuter villages such as the development proposed in High Lane are absolutely the wrong way to address the housing problems we face.
Dream world
-
Dream world
Perhaps you can offer some alternative solutions rather than criticising other people's ideas?
-
New housing developments also need to be built close to where people work. New commuter villages such as the development proposed in High Lane are absolutely the wrong way to address the housing problems we face.
I'm not entirely sure how you square this circle. There are multiple problems with building housing near where people work.
I speak - and can only really speak - as an office worker. I actually work from home, although if I did work from my employer's local office then I'd be working in Salford Quays. I could live in Salford Quays - be right near the office. But I have a young family and who wants to bring up a young family in an area with no decent sized supermarket, few schools, doctors etc. Yet alone lack of having any outdoor space. It's right for some - I know people who live out there - but it's not right for everyone. So where do I live to be near that office that gives me the lifestyle I want?
And what happens if and when I move job? People move jobs, no matter what they do. The job for life doesn't exist any more. Companies go grow, shrink, go bust. They relocate. Twice in my career I have been working in jobs where the employer makes a major move of its offices. Both organisations moved to offices eight or nine miles away from their previous one. The second employer was months away from another (less drastic) move before I left.
Companies move for all sorts of reasons. To consolidate their locations. To gain bigger - or smaller - premises. To get people to work for it. Although I work from home, most of my team are based in West London. We struggle to hire people because of the location. It's a pain in the backside to commute. One of my previous employers moved from West London to Central London for exactly that reason. It was easier to fill vacancies. Said company went to the extent of moving its UK HQ from Slough to Central London because it couldn't get the staff. Not enough people wanted to work - or commute to - Slough. Lots of people would commute to Central London.
Just think of all those people who did live in Slough. Who had - perhaps - moved to be near their employer. I'm talking office work here, but factories relocate. Warehouses do. It can happen in any role.
Another factor we haven't even got close to is that when people are in a relationship, it's common for both to work. The days when the husband was the breadwinner whilst the wife stayed at home and cleaned/looked after the children are gone. What do we do when couples work in completely different locations. I've never worked that close to where my partner works.
Building houses near where people work seems like a sensible idea. But it's one fraught with problems on a practical level. And that's why commuting happens. What we need are better commuting links because it's always going to be needed.
Incidentally, this seems a good point to mention why places like High Lane are likely targets for housing. There is land there. Every politician worth their salt shouts "BUILD ON BROWNFIELD FIRST!" because it's what the electorate want to hear. But what happens when the brownfield land potentially available to build housing on, will provide less than 50% of the housing you need.
Welcome to Greater Manchester's problem. In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes. The brownfield sites identified as having options for building? That will provide 100,000 homes if all built on.
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/brownfield-register-only-meets-50-of-housing-need-says-barton-willmore/
Of course the more brownfield sites we build on, the less land we have in towns for business where people can work...
Perhaps if we all suddenly stopped wanting box houses with a garden and all moved to apartment blocks instead, it could work. But somehow I don't see that happening either.
-
That's a good analysis @andrewbowden I also work from home and everything I do is done via my broadband connection. When I have to travel to see my customers I go to the airport or the railway. My office is in Warrington, but to get there for 9am I would need to leave at 7:30am and it also takes ninety minutes for the return journey. What's the point? Why would I waste 3 hours a day in the car when I can do exactly the same work by walking for fifteen seconds from my kitchen to my home office? For knowledge workers who collaborate across significant distances, then communications infrastructure is the most important thing.
The final estimated cost of HS2 will be £80b (yes...billion). I wish the government had allocated that money to running fibre broadband to every existing property in the country and then mandating every new property musty have the same. The increased communications capability would lead to significant improvements in technologies such as video conferencing and collaborative working. The savings from sticking huge amounts of carbon in the air from saved journeys and congestion on the road would be huge.
-
@Howard you make an excellent point about improving communications which would enable more people to work from home and work collaboratively with colleagues. (I read through Green Party policies prior to the election and your points are all in there somewhere!)
@andrewbowden I hear what you are saying. There isn't an easy solution to the problem. I'm not suggesting building executive detached houses with individual gardens in Salford Quays or the centre of Manchester. I do think some new developments in these areas should be designed with families in mind.
-
That's a good analysis @andrewbowden I also work from home and everything I do is done via my broadband connection. When I have to travel to see my customers I go to the airport or the railway. My office is in Warrington, but to get there for 9am I would need to leave at 7:30am and it also takes ninety minutes for the return journey. What's the point? Why would I waste 3 hours a day in the car when I can do exactly the same work by walking for fifteen seconds from my kitchen to my home office? For knowledge workers who collaborate across significant distances, then communications infrastructure is the most important thing.
The final estimated cost of HS2 will be £80b (yes...billion). I wish the government had allocated that money to running fibre broadband to every existing property in the country and then mandating every new property musty have the same. The increased communications capability would lead to significant improvements in technologies such as video conferencing and collaborative working. The savings from sticking huge amounts of carbon in the air from saved journeys and congestion on the road would be huge.
I have fibre broadband. It's certainly noticeable that I have far fewer connection problems than some of my colleagues when they work from home! It really should be the standard.
Equally as someone who spends a lot of time on trains to London, I wish we had HS2 now. There are times when face to face contact is far better than video conferencing. But a day trip to London requires an early start, and a late finish. The intercity railway network in Britain is appalling to many countries. France, Germany, Spain, Japan, Switzerland, they're all way ahead of us on this. In France the TGV network has destroyed most of the internal flights. They're just not needed.
Incidentally the cost of HS2 is £56 billion. £80 billion is a figure that's been bandied around a lot, but that's not the budget of HS2. The 'missing' £24bn is things like enhancing tram links in Nottingham, and regeneration schemes around stations.
-
With regards to brownfield sites and infill housing developments, I think far more could and should be done to ensure that these developments meet housing needs.
Take the development opposite me on Manor Road as an example. One house has been demolished to create 7 new houses, so a net gain of 6 homes from this site in Stockport. However, the prices for these homes start at £400k. Anyone who can afford to buy a £400k home doesn't have a housing problem. I also suspect that the homes on this development are likely to appeal to couples downsizing, rather than young families moving up the housing ladder which might free up starter homes for first time buyers.
My fear for the future is that we will end up with roads and housing developments all over the Greenbelt and we will still have housing and traffic problems at the end of all the destruction.
-
I'm not entirely sure how you square this circle. There are multiple problems with building housing near where people work.
I speak - and can only really speak - as an office worker. I actually work from home, although if I did work from my employer's local office then I'd be working in Salford Quays. I could live in Salford Quays - be right near the office. But I have a young family and who wants to bring up a young family in an area with no decent sized supermarket, few schools, doctors etc. Yet alone lack of having any outdoor space. It's right for some - I know people who live out there - but it's not right for everyone. So where do I live to be near that office that gives me the lifestyle I want?
And what happens if and when I move job? People move jobs, no matter what they do. The job for life doesn't exist any more. Companies go grow, shrink, go bust. They relocate. Twice in my career I have been working in jobs where the employer makes a major move of its offices. Both organisations moved to offices eight or nine miles away from their previous one. The second employer was months away from another (less drastic) move before I left.
Companies move for all sorts of reasons. To consolidate their locations. To gain bigger - or smaller - premises. To get people to work for it. Although I work from home, most of my team are based in West London. We struggle to hire people because of the location. It's a pain in the backside to commute. One of my previous employers moved from West London to Central London for exactly that reason. It was easier to fill vacancies. Said company went to the extent of moving its UK HQ from Slough to Central London because it couldn't get the staff. Not enough people wanted to work - or commute to - Slough. Lots of people would commute to Central London.
Just think of all those people who did live in Slough. Who had - perhaps - moved to be near their employer. I'm talking office work here, but factories relocate. Warehouses do. It can happen in any role.
Another factor we haven't even got close to is that when people are in a relationship, it's common for both to work. The days when the husband was the breadwinner whilst the wife stayed at home and cleaned/looked after the children are gone. What do we do when couples work in completely different locations. I've never worked that close to where my partner works.
Building houses near where people work seems like a sensible idea. But it's one fraught with problems on a practical level. And that's why commuting happens. What we need are better commuting links because it's always going to be needed.
Incidentally, this seems a good point to mention why places like High Lane are likely targets for housing. There is land there. Every politician worth their salt shouts "BUILD ON BROWNFIELD FIRST!" because it's what the electorate want to hear. But what happens when the brownfield land potentially available to build housing on, will provide less than 50% of the housing you need.
Welcome to Greater Manchester's problem. In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes. The brownfield sites identified as having options for building? That will provide 100,000 homes if all built on.
https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/brownfield-register-only-meets-50-of-housing-need-says-barton-willmore/
Of course the more brownfield sites we build on, the less land we have in towns for business where people can work...
Perhaps if we all suddenly stopped wanting box houses with a garden and all moved to apartment blocks instead, it could work. But somehow I don't see that happening either.
Exelent article .
-
Perhaps you can offer some alternative solutions rather than criticising other people's ideas?
Yes the bredbury by pass for one .
-
"In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes"
this figure depends on who you ask
-
"In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes"
this figure depends on who you ask
That figure comes from the draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
-
"In the next 20 years we need 227,200 homes"
this figure depends on who you ask
I wont see them
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!). ;)
-
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 .
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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