All your Marple and Stockport property and financial needs under one roof

Author Topic: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites  (Read 36195 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mabel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #116 on: January 15, 2017, 03:51:18 PM »

The problem is perfectly simple - there isn't enough housing to go around. So we need to build more, or convert other property into housing. That's all

Quite, there are many empty buildings and brownfield sites which could be used for housing.  However, neither the large house building companies which dominate the sector, not the current Government, see any value (both in terms of profit or votes) to make this happen.


GeoffAbell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
    • Marple Lib Dems
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #114 on: January 14, 2017, 07:06:55 PM »
To be fair there were both Lib Dem and Conservatives there, but it was the residents and organisers who made it happen.  A great day!  Lots of support from cars on the A6 too.

marplerambler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #113 on: January 14, 2017, 05:20:54 PM »
My apologies: Kenny Blair attended. Lib Dems 1- Conservatives 1.

marplerambler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #112 on: January 14, 2017, 05:00:26 PM »
It was great to see so many people out on the protest rally opposing the GMSF from High Lane today. I noticed Geoff Abell was supporting the rally at the Town Hall. One nil to the Lib Dems from Marple. The organisers stated prior to departure from High Lane were emphatic that the rally was to be apolitical but presumably all of the Conservatives who were told this at High Lane  didn't realise that this meant that their Conservative stickers were not meant to be on the banners. No sign of William Wragg MP surprise, surprise. How about making my day by informing me about any other Conservative/Labour/LibDem/Other Marple Councillor, MP or prospective councillor/ MP bothered to turn out to show their support?

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #111 on: January 02, 2017, 11:39:17 PM »
Or admit that most people living in Marple would rather that people where homeless elsewhere so as to keep our nice country side…..

Exactly right, I spotted the Reddish mp a couple of years or so ago campaigning against new houses but his election pamphlets included a signed declaration to build thousands of houses?

We also need to stop paying people to procreate.

I guess we'll see a reduction in demand from March as we press the Brexit button.

ringi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #110 on: January 02, 2017, 07:11:37 PM »
The problem is perfectly simple - there isn't enough housing to go around. So we need to build more, or convert other property into housing. That's all

Or admit that most people living in Marple would rather that people where homeless elsewhere so as to keep our nice country side…..

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #109 on: January 02, 2017, 10:44:34 AM »
Adswood is largely council houses and other forms of social housing, of which there is a shortage, so you have to go on a waiting list, and /or qualify through a points system, which prioritises those in greatest need.

But Duke knew that all along.......

The problem is perfectly simple - there isn't enough housing to go around. So we need to build more, or convert other property into housing. That's all

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #108 on: January 01, 2017, 06:11:47 PM »
As a landlord, I can tell you there are few areas left in Stockport where someone on housing benefit can afford to live.    There are even fewer landlords that are willing to rent to people on benefits due to the legal system always being on the side of the tenant....

what's Adswood for in that case?

ringi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 346
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #107 on: December 31, 2016, 09:56:29 PM »
Reality is, if we removed all housing benefit we'd see the demand shift to cheaper housing and the market will respond. Currently, if you have your rent subsidised, the attitude is to get the best, some poor taxpayer is paying for it.

As a landlord, I can tell you there are few areas left in Stockport where someone on housing benefit can afford to live.    There are even fewer landlords that are willing to rent to people on benefits due to the legal system always being on the side of the tenant....

GeoffAbell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
    • Marple Lib Dems
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #106 on: December 31, 2016, 03:32:37 PM »
Duke, teasing aside - I do value your contributions to these pages.  As I do others who argue rationally and can put themselves in the shoes of others.

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #105 on: December 30, 2016, 06:34:05 PM »
I'd also like to see the government help with our local authority duty of care towards the old (via social services) but by 2020 I think the government expect all authorities to raise finances locally.  As there is no local income tax here, that means a less-progressive taxation, i.e. a heavier burden on businesses and the poor.  It is true that SMBC after a period of no council tax on vacant domestic properties, do tax them more heavily than occupied properties to try to get more residents living there.

"incredibly clever"?  Published many papers lately?

That is interesting, SMBC levy tax on vacant property in the private sector but does not pay any on it's own empty property? Nor does it tax the former government agencies on their empty property.

I agree with you about a local income tax, council tax and business rates should be removed on all but empty property and local income taxes should be introduced (or perhaps a sales tax for business). The poll tax was a great idea had it have been income related and I think the Lib dems were championing this up until the 2010 election - for me, this was a policy they could & should have got into the coalition agreement and far more important than the tuition fees issue.

As for my incredible cleverness being rated in published papers, I think that only works in academia and I'm a long time out of uni - the rest of us simply don't have the time for such nonsense.

GeoffAbell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
    • Marple Lib Dems
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #104 on: December 30, 2016, 05:44:04 PM »
I'd like to see government tax the local authorities on empty non-domestic property as it does the private sector.

I'd also like to see the government help with our local authority duty of care towards the old (via social services) but by 2020 I think the government expect all authorities to raise finances locally.  As there is no local income tax here, that means a less-progressive taxation, i.e. a heavier burden on businesses and the poor.  It is true that SMBC after a period of no council tax on vacant domestic properties, do tax them more heavily than occupied properties to try to get more residents living there.

"incredibly clever"?  Published many papers lately?

Duke Fame

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #103 on: December 30, 2016, 12:56:15 PM »
Indeed. But until that happens (don't hold your breath!) Duke's idea is pie in the sky and would just lead to even more homelessness and misery.

You ignore the issue of benefits. We need to stop the incentive of reliance on the state, the state is forcing rents and housing costs up, to pay for the benefits the state has to tax those working more and thereby leaving the working person with less money to pay those increasing housing costs.

Also Duke's idea is not Duke's idea, it's just a market economy and whilst I'm incredibly clever, I'd not claim to invented such a brilliant evolution. However, if we're lobbying local authorities, they need to look at their idle properties within heir own estate. Take Stockport, it has a plethora of local authority of government agency owned buildings standing idle or under-utilised. I'd like to see government tax the local authorities on empty non-domestic property as it does the private sector.

Dave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2737
Re: Greater Manchester Spatial Framework - proposed built development sites
« Reply #102 on: December 30, 2016, 11:29:25 AM »
It's easily done, give developers an incentive, cheaper fast track planning for cheaper homes.

Indeed. But until that happens (don't hold your breath!) Duke's idea is pie in the sky and would just lead to even more homelessness and misery.