Fresh move to restart island scheme - but affordable homes could be dropped

Fresh move to restart island scheme - but affordable homes could be dropped

UNFINISHED: The building site on Portland

CRISIS: Cllr Penny McCartney

First published in News
Last updated
by

A NEW bid to kickstart the construction of a multi-million pound 554-homes scheme on Portland that stalled in the recession has been revealed.

There are fresh moves to complete the Ocean Views luxury flats – the former Hardy complex of naval accommodation off Castle Road – 10 years after it was originally approved by planners.

But the new owners want to drop the affordable homes part of the deal to make it viable – a move criticised by community leaders who say the island needs housing.

During original works, one block was converted with 39 flats sold and moves were made to prepare another block before developers Rossmark Properties, linked to the Comer Homes Group, went into administration during the recession and the land was taken over by the banks in 2011.

The site has been purchased by Fulca Ltd, also part of Comer Homes, which wants to restart the development, a mixture of converted accommodation and new-build flats.

Fulca says a substantial amount has already been spent on the scheme including community contributions.

It argues that new unforeseen costs to do with the condition of the site – including a multi-million pound bill for stabilising a slope – and a downturn in the housing market means it cannot afford to make any more developer obligations as it will ‘worsen an already unviable scheme’.

It is asking Weymouth and Portland Borough Council to remove the affordable housing obligations made in 2004 – providing 30 units to a housing association and a paying a sum to the council for homes off-site.

Fulca admits in its application it will be forced to accept a financial loss on the site ‘in order to restore the good name of the Comer Group locally’.

Councillors at a planning meeting tomorrow are being recommended to reject the modification as officers believe the project would still be financially viable if it was to include affordable homes.

  • The planning and traffic committee will be held in the Weymouth Pavilion Ocean Room on Tuesday, August 19, rather than at the council offices due to the anticipated level of interest.

It starts with site visits from 9am and the committee will reconvene at the Pavilion at 11am to consider matters on the agenda.

This includes Ocean Views, and a plan to create a new home for Weymouth Football Club at Lodmoor.

Members of the public who wish to attend should arrive at the Pavilion from 10.30am onwards.

Housing crisis on isle

BOROUGH councillor for Portland Penny McCartney said: “We have got a crisis in affordable housing on Portland.

“Housing developers can’t just say they won’t build them when there are over 2,000 people waiting to get some form of housing. It’s really unfair.

“If they want to put in luxury accommodation who do they think can afford to buy them? We have the second lowest income in the South West, outside Cornwall, so if local people can’t afford them who are they building them for?”

Mayor of Weymouth and Portland Kate Wheller welcomed the development at what she called an ‘eyesore’ site but urged the company to invest in local infrastructure.

She added: “The reduction of the affordable homes is also a real worry.”

Resident Andrew Cowling wrote to the council urging councillors to reject the modification.

He said: “It is obvious that there is a substantial shortage of affordable housing on Portland and this is unlikely to change unless these types of scheme provide what they originally guaranteed to do.”

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:56am Mon 18 Aug 14

PORTLAND ROVER says...

"The Good name of Comer Homes"??? When has Comer Homes ever had a good name? Where is the 'Community Contribution' they have said they put in?

The current completed block still has many many units available, so what makes them think they will get all units filled in another block of un-affordable units???

Now, they want to do away with the planning requirements of providing affordable housing? The reason why the current units are STILL Empty is because THEY ARE NOT AFFORDABLE!!! HEEELLLOOOOO!!!!

Can I make a suggestion to the company pretending not to be Comer Homes but really is 'Comer Homes'.... Cut your losses... Make the existing unused units Affordable, then demolish the ugly skeleton of the second block, actually put something back into the community as promised, by landscaping the area of the newly demolished block and then...get lost!
"The Good name of Comer Homes"??? When has Comer Homes ever had a good name? Where is the 'Community Contribution' they have said they put in? The current completed block still has many many units available, so what makes them think they will get all units filled in another block of un-affordable units??? Now, they want to do away with the planning requirements of providing affordable housing? The reason why the current units are STILL Empty is because THEY ARE NOT AFFORDABLE!!! HEEELLLOOOOO!!!! Can I make a suggestion to the company pretending not to be Comer Homes but really is 'Comer Homes'.... Cut your losses... Make the existing unused units Affordable, then demolish the ugly skeleton of the second block, actually put something back into the community as promised, by landscaping the area of the newly demolished block and then...get lost! PORTLAND ROVER
  • Score: 34

8:16am Mon 18 Aug 14

hobbitdamian says...

Not affordable because there is no carrot to dangle noe the the olympics has passed!!
Not affordable because there is no carrot to dangle noe the the olympics has passed!! hobbitdamian
  • Score: 4

8:54am Mon 18 Aug 14

K9 says...

No affordable because the Government has done everything possible to avoid the overdue house-price crash before the next election.

If Comer are so convinced they will make make a loss, perhaps they'll sign up to passing over any profit to the council? After all, they've nothing to lose, apparently.
No affordable because the Government has done everything possible to avoid the overdue house-price crash before the next election. If Comer are so convinced they will make make a loss, perhaps they'll sign up to passing over any profit to the council? After all, they've nothing to lose, apparently. K9
  • Score: 7

9:02am Mon 18 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

K9 wrote:
No affordable because the Government has done everything possible to avoid the overdue house-price crash before the next election.

If Comer are so convinced they will make make a loss, perhaps they'll sign up to passing over any profit to the council? After all, they've nothing to lose, apparently.
Hear hear.
But have you seen the news this morning?
"House prices in record August slump" - Guardian
"London House Prices cool in August" - Independent
"Homeowners slash prices in largest ever summer sale" - Telegraph
Unless Osborne is prepared to trade even more of our young people's futures to shore up a housing bubble, then i think we will see sustained falls over the next 2-3 years.
Which means this development is even less likely to succeed.
[quote][p][bold]K9[/bold] wrote: No affordable because the Government has done everything possible to avoid the overdue house-price crash before the next election. If Comer are so convinced they will make make a loss, perhaps they'll sign up to passing over any profit to the council? After all, they've nothing to lose, apparently.[/p][/quote]Hear hear. But have you seen the news this morning? "House prices in record August slump" - Guardian "London House Prices cool in August" - Independent "Homeowners slash prices in largest ever summer sale" - Telegraph Unless Osborne is prepared to trade even more of our young people's futures to shore up a housing bubble, then i think we will see sustained falls over the next 2-3 years. Which means this development is even less likely to succeed. JamesYoung
  • Score: 9

9:35am Mon 18 Aug 14

Bollard says...

It seems to me that Comer Homes are just going through the motions here so they can offload the remains of what must have been a huge loss making project. As the evenings draw in, let's see how many flats in the existing block actually have lights on!
It seems to me that Comer Homes are just going through the motions here so they can offload the remains of what must have been a huge loss making project. As the evenings draw in, let's see how many flats in the existing block actually have lights on! Bollard
  • Score: 8

9:39am Mon 18 Aug 14

Rocksalt says...

Frankly, I think the councillors are just parroting their usual mantras. Nothing the developers might build would be affordable to the bulk of people on Portland, whether or not you chose to call it 'affordable'.

It might be more pragmatic to let the developers build the thing and sell the units to people who will at least bring some money into the island which might in turn boost the local economy.

And if the developers do have some cash left over then by all means get them to spend it on infrastructure etc, rather than the 'affordable' homes that are only affordable once and benefit only a few lucky ' ticket holders'
Frankly, I think the councillors are just parroting their usual mantras. Nothing the developers might build would be affordable to the bulk of people on Portland, whether or not you chose to call it 'affordable'. It might be more pragmatic to let the developers build the thing and sell the units to people who will at least bring some money into the island which might in turn boost the local economy. And if the developers do have some cash left over then by all means get them to spend it on infrastructure etc, rather than the 'affordable' homes that are only affordable once and benefit only a few lucky ' ticket holders' Rocksalt
  • Score: 10

10:06am Mon 18 Aug 14

notweymouth says...

They have down their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at the end of the day these converted pigeon lofts with no room to swing a cat will never attack more than people after a weekend retreats.
They have down their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at the end of the day these converted pigeon lofts with no room to swing a cat will never attack more than people after a weekend retreats. notweymouth
  • Score: 11

10:06am Mon 18 Aug 14

GMax says...

PORTLAND ROVER wrote:
"The Good name of Comer Homes"??? When has Comer Homes ever had a good name? Where is the 'Community Contribution' they have said they put in?

The current completed block still has many many units available, so what makes them think they will get all units filled in another block of un-affordable units???

Now, they want to do away with the planning requirements of providing affordable housing? The reason why the current units are STILL Empty is because THEY ARE NOT AFFORDABLE!!! HEEELLLOOOOO!!!!

Can I make a suggestion to the company pretending not to be Comer Homes but really is 'Comer Homes'.... Cut your losses... Make the existing unused units Affordable, then demolish the ugly skeleton of the second block, actually put something back into the community as promised, by landscaping the area of the newly demolished block and then...get lost!
Some of the flats seem empty because they are summer holiday flats.
However, some are empty simply because they can't rent them out or sell them because they are to expensive, for example, I know someone that lives there and their rent is £700 pcm for a simple 1 bedroom flat.
It's nothing special or luxurious yet it's that expensive.
.
GMax.
[quote][p][bold]PORTLAND ROVER[/bold] wrote: "The Good name of Comer Homes"??? When has Comer Homes ever had a good name? Where is the 'Community Contribution' they have said they put in? The current completed block still has many many units available, so what makes them think they will get all units filled in another block of un-affordable units??? Now, they want to do away with the planning requirements of providing affordable housing? The reason why the current units are STILL Empty is because THEY ARE NOT AFFORDABLE!!! HEEELLLOOOOO!!!! Can I make a suggestion to the company pretending not to be Comer Homes but really is 'Comer Homes'.... Cut your losses... Make the existing unused units Affordable, then demolish the ugly skeleton of the second block, actually put something back into the community as promised, by landscaping the area of the newly demolished block and then...get lost![/p][/quote]Some of the flats seem empty because they are summer holiday flats. However, some are empty simply because they can't rent them out or sell them because they are to expensive, for example, I know someone that lives there and their rent is £700 pcm for a simple 1 bedroom flat. It's nothing special or luxurious yet it's that expensive. . GMax. GMax
  • Score: 10

10:24am Mon 18 Aug 14

Newground says...

notweymouth wrote:
They have down their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at the end of the day these converted pigeon lofts with no room to swing a cat will never attack more than people after a weekend retreats.
notweymouth,

I fear you have had a little too much to drink.
[quote][p][bold]notweymouth[/bold] wrote: They have down their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at the end of the day these converted pigeon lofts with no room to swing a cat will never attack more than people after a weekend retreats.[/p][/quote]notweymouth, I fear you have had a little too much to drink. Newground
  • Score: 4

10:32am Mon 18 Aug 14

notweymouth says...

Newground wrote:
notweymouth wrote:
They have down their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at the end of the day these converted pigeon lofts with no room to swing a cat will never attack more than people after a weekend retreats.
notweymouth,

I fear you have had a little too much to drink.
why do you say that? When I had a look at one, there were no wardrobes and the agent couldn't explain where they would go. Also I do not drink alcohol.
[quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notweymouth[/bold] wrote: They have down their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at the end of the day these converted pigeon lofts with no room to swing a cat will never attack more than people after a weekend retreats.[/p][/quote]notweymouth, I fear you have had a little too much to drink.[/p][/quote]why do you say that? When I had a look at one, there were no wardrobes and the agent couldn't explain where they would go. Also I do not drink alcohol. notweymouth
  • Score: 0

10:35am Mon 18 Aug 14

notweymouth says...

notweymouth wrote:
Newground wrote:
notweymouth wrote:
They have down their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at the end of the day these converted pigeon lofts with no room to swing a cat will never attack more than people after a weekend retreats.
notweymouth,

I fear you have had a little too much to drink.
why do you say that? When I had a look at one, there were no wardrobes and the agent couldn't explain where they would go. Also I do not drink alcohol.
Sorry I see the typo now, I meant attract, not attack, LOL :-)
[quote][p][bold]notweymouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notweymouth[/bold] wrote: They have down their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at the end of the day these converted pigeon lofts with no room to swing a cat will never attack more than people after a weekend retreats.[/p][/quote]notweymouth, I fear you have had a little too much to drink.[/p][/quote]why do you say that? When I had a look at one, there were no wardrobes and the agent couldn't explain where they would go. Also I do not drink alcohol.[/p][/quote]Sorry I see the typo now, I meant attract, not attack, LOL :-) notweymouth
  • Score: 9

11:05am Mon 18 Aug 14

PortlandandWeymouth says...

Housing crisis on Portland? Really?

Is the infrastructure ready for more housing?
A Dr's thats stretched.
14 miles from the nearest hospital
More and more families who do not know how to live in a civilised society
Limited school places
An invisible Police presence.
More and more homes converted to multiple occupancy containing people in and out of prison when they should have proper help.
A council that doesnt know the difference between 2 parts of its anatomy
Very few jobs, including the risk of losses at the Prison/detention centre/prison

Lets get the infrastructure right first before shoehorning more families in. And if that means the council squeeze it out of the developers who got rich on the back of schemes like this, then so be it.
Housing crisis on Portland? Really? Is the infrastructure ready for more housing? A Dr's thats stretched. 14 miles from the nearest hospital More and more families who do not know how to live in a civilised society Limited school places An invisible Police presence. More and more homes converted to multiple occupancy containing people in and out of prison when they should have proper help. A council that doesnt know the difference between 2 parts of its anatomy Very few jobs, including the risk of losses at the Prison/detention centre/prison Lets get the infrastructure right first before shoehorning more families in. And if that means the council squeeze it out of the developers who got rich on the back of schemes like this, then so be it. PortlandandWeymouth
  • Score: 16

11:11am Mon 18 Aug 14

IslandJim1 says...

Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?
Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense? IslandJim1
  • Score: 29

11:23am Mon 18 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

IslandJim1 wrote:
Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?
A lack of buyers at the PRICE being asked.
I think developers expect the government to keep underwriting overpriced housing development with taxpayer cash. You only have to look at the increase in home builder profits when Help to buy was introduced to understand.
Interestingly, despite the propaganda channel (BBC) story about Bovis profits this year, most home builders shares are dropping in price.
Why? Because the markets are starting to realise that they are producing an overpriced and poor quality product at a time when wages are falling.
Anybody who buys a first home now is insane.
[quote][p][bold]IslandJim1[/bold] wrote: Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?[/p][/quote]A lack of buyers at the PRICE being asked. I think developers expect the government to keep underwriting overpriced housing development with taxpayer cash. You only have to look at the increase in home builder profits when Help to buy was introduced to understand. Interestingly, despite the propaganda channel (BBC) story about Bovis profits this year, most home builders shares are dropping in price. Why? Because the markets are starting to realise that they are producing an overpriced and poor quality product at a time when wages are falling. Anybody who buys a first home now is insane. JamesYoung
  • Score: 10

11:48am Mon 18 Aug 14

IslandJim1 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
IslandJim1 wrote:
Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?
A lack of buyers at the PRICE being asked.
I think developers expect the government to keep underwriting overpriced housing development with taxpayer cash. You only have to look at the increase in home builder profits when Help to buy was introduced to understand.
Interestingly, despite the propaganda channel (BBC) story about Bovis profits this year, most home builders shares are dropping in price.
Why? Because the markets are starting to realise that they are producing an overpriced and poor quality product at a time when wages are falling.
Anybody who buys a first home now is insane.
Overpriced local housing or underachieving local population, double edged sword if you ask me! There are very few places cheaper than Portland, so if people cant afford to buy or rent here, what are they expecting to achieve in life?
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IslandJim1[/bold] wrote: Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?[/p][/quote]A lack of buyers at the PRICE being asked. I think developers expect the government to keep underwriting overpriced housing development with taxpayer cash. You only have to look at the increase in home builder profits when Help to buy was introduced to understand. Interestingly, despite the propaganda channel (BBC) story about Bovis profits this year, most home builders shares are dropping in price. Why? Because the markets are starting to realise that they are producing an overpriced and poor quality product at a time when wages are falling. Anybody who buys a first home now is insane.[/p][/quote]Overpriced local housing or underachieving local population, double edged sword if you ask me! There are very few places cheaper than Portland, so if people cant afford to buy or rent here, what are they expecting to achieve in life? IslandJim1
  • Score: 3

12:11pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Rocksalt says...

JamesYoung wrote:
IslandJim1 wrote:
Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?
A lack of buyers at the PRICE being asked.
I think developers expect the government to keep underwriting overpriced housing development with taxpayer cash. You only have to look at the increase in home builder profits when Help to buy was introduced to understand.
Interestingly, despite the propaganda channel (BBC) story about Bovis profits this year, most home builders shares are dropping in price.
Why? Because the markets are starting to realise that they are producing an overpriced and poor quality product at a time when wages are falling.
Anybody who buys a first home now is insane.
Perhaps the builders are hoping for a buy to let boom when the new rules pensions kick in and people don't have to buy an annuity
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IslandJim1[/bold] wrote: Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?[/p][/quote]A lack of buyers at the PRICE being asked. I think developers expect the government to keep underwriting overpriced housing development with taxpayer cash. You only have to look at the increase in home builder profits when Help to buy was introduced to understand. Interestingly, despite the propaganda channel (BBC) story about Bovis profits this year, most home builders shares are dropping in price. Why? Because the markets are starting to realise that they are producing an overpriced and poor quality product at a time when wages are falling. Anybody who buys a first home now is insane.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the builders are hoping for a buy to let boom when the new rules pensions kick in and people don't have to buy an annuity Rocksalt
  • Score: 4

2:37pm Mon 18 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

Rocksalt wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
IslandJim1 wrote:
Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?
A lack of buyers at the PRICE being asked.
I think developers expect the government to keep underwriting overpriced housing development with taxpayer cash. You only have to look at the increase in home builder profits when Help to buy was introduced to understand.
Interestingly, despite the propaganda channel (BBC) story about Bovis profits this year, most home builders shares are dropping in price.
Why? Because the markets are starting to realise that they are producing an overpriced and poor quality product at a time when wages are falling.
Anybody who buys a first home now is insane.
Perhaps the builders are hoping for a buy to let boom when the new rules pensions kick in and people don't have to buy an annuity
I'm sure that this is what the government is hoping for. After all, thanks to their clever statistical sleight of hand, things look better than they really are.
The cost of housing was removed from the inflation calculation, so houses could treble in cost in a single year without impact on inflation.
However, they ARE included in GDP, so a housing bubble would look like economic growth.
Then you get Osborne making idiot statements such as "house prices are about right, given how GDP is growing".
So if you are a pensioner looking at a 1-2% bank interest rate return, why wouldn't you look to buy to let. After all, the economy is growing, inflation is low, house prices are as they should be and everything is rosy.
When you think about it, regardless of what the population is doing, house prices should only ever increase in line with wage growth. They can increase in the short term, but then there is a disconnect and the pool of buyers dries up. That this is not the case points to lax lending as the cause of the problem. I laugh inwardly every time somebody tells me that population growth is driving house prices. Population didn't shrink during 2008/9 but house prices did. Population isn't shrinking now, but house prices (in London) certainly are.
Sadly, i think what we will see is pensioners investing their lump sums in housing, only to see the value of those houses fall. That might be fine, as long as rental values hold up, but they've been falling (when measured against CPI) for the last decade.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IslandJim1[/bold] wrote: Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?[/p][/quote]A lack of buyers at the PRICE being asked. I think developers expect the government to keep underwriting overpriced housing development with taxpayer cash. You only have to look at the increase in home builder profits when Help to buy was introduced to understand. Interestingly, despite the propaganda channel (BBC) story about Bovis profits this year, most home builders shares are dropping in price. Why? Because the markets are starting to realise that they are producing an overpriced and poor quality product at a time when wages are falling. Anybody who buys a first home now is insane.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the builders are hoping for a buy to let boom when the new rules pensions kick in and people don't have to buy an annuity[/p][/quote]I'm sure that this is what the government is hoping for. After all, thanks to their clever statistical sleight of hand, things look better than they really are. The cost of housing was removed from the inflation calculation, so houses could treble in cost in a single year without impact on inflation. However, they ARE included in GDP, so a housing bubble would look like economic growth. Then you get Osborne making idiot statements such as "house prices are about right, given how GDP is growing". So if you are a pensioner looking at a 1-2% bank interest rate return, why wouldn't you look to buy to let. After all, the economy is growing, inflation is low, house prices are as they should be and everything is rosy. When you think about it, regardless of what the population is doing, house prices should only ever increase in line with wage growth. They can increase in the short term, but then there is a disconnect and the pool of buyers dries up. That this is not the case points to lax lending as the cause of the problem. I laugh inwardly every time somebody tells me that population growth is driving house prices. Population didn't shrink during 2008/9 but house prices did. Population isn't shrinking now, but house prices (in London) certainly are. Sadly, i think what we will see is pensioners investing their lump sums in housing, only to see the value of those houses fall. That might be fine, as long as rental values hold up, but they've been falling (when measured against CPI) for the last decade. JamesYoung
  • Score: 3

2:39pm Mon 18 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

IslandJim1 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
IslandJim1 wrote:
Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?
A lack of buyers at the PRICE being asked.
I think developers expect the government to keep underwriting overpriced housing development with taxpayer cash. You only have to look at the increase in home builder profits when Help to buy was introduced to understand.
Interestingly, despite the propaganda channel (BBC) story about Bovis profits this year, most home builders shares are dropping in price.
Why? Because the markets are starting to realise that they are producing an overpriced and poor quality product at a time when wages are falling.
Anybody who buys a first home now is insane.
Overpriced local housing or underachieving local population, double edged sword if you ask me! There are very few places cheaper than Portland, so if people cant afford to buy or rent here, what are they expecting to achieve in life?
The flip side of this argument is if you have no aspiration, why would you bother trying to achieve in life.
In the early 1990s, it was perfectly possible for a low grade NHS admin worker and a lowly bank clerk to buy a starter home. I know, because i was the admin worker.
The UK's obsession with house prices has locked an entire generation out of ownership of the little piece of England that they work so hard for.
Faced with that, why bother? Why not work part time, or do an easy job, and just claim tax credits?
[quote][p][bold]IslandJim1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IslandJim1[/bold] wrote: Ocean View development Portland, properties unsold after 7 years. Pennsylvania Heights Portland, Still unfinished nearly 3 years after the original completion date, due to lack of interest in the first phase. Officers field Portland, still not all sold 2 years after the Olympics. New houses being built by Tesco & Behind Weston Street. New houses planned for Bumpers Lane Wakeham. Seems to me there is no lack of available housing on Portland, just a lack of buyers...so why keep building, where's the business sense?[/p][/quote]A lack of buyers at the PRICE being asked. I think developers expect the government to keep underwriting overpriced housing development with taxpayer cash. You only have to look at the increase in home builder profits when Help to buy was introduced to understand. Interestingly, despite the propaganda channel (BBC) story about Bovis profits this year, most home builders shares are dropping in price. Why? Because the markets are starting to realise that they are producing an overpriced and poor quality product at a time when wages are falling. Anybody who buys a first home now is insane.[/p][/quote]Overpriced local housing or underachieving local population, double edged sword if you ask me! There are very few places cheaper than Portland, so if people cant afford to buy or rent here, what are they expecting to achieve in life?[/p][/quote]The flip side of this argument is if you have no aspiration, why would you bother trying to achieve in life. In the early 1990s, it was perfectly possible for a low grade NHS admin worker and a lowly bank clerk to buy a starter home. I know, because i was the admin worker. The UK's obsession with house prices has locked an entire generation out of ownership of the little piece of England that they work so hard for. Faced with that, why bother? Why not work part time, or do an easy job, and just claim tax credits? JamesYoung
  • Score: 8

3:31pm Mon 18 Aug 14

February1948 says...

Wasn't the development at Officers' Field intended to be used for social housing, or at least some of it? Or was that another ruse to reclaim open space from the people of Portland?
Wasn't the development at Officers' Field intended to be used for social housing, or at least some of it? Or was that another ruse to reclaim open space from the people of Portland? February1948
  • Score: 3

3:38pm Mon 18 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

February1948 wrote:
Wasn't the development at Officers' Field intended to be used for social housing, or at least some of it? Or was that another ruse to reclaim open space from the people of Portland?
Some of it was - the standard 30%.
In fact, a friend of mine and I were involved in trying to get SWRDA to sell the land to a Community Land Trust so that the whole site could be developed as affordable homes. We had a developer (Affordable Homes UK) lined up, but SWRDA wouldn't even talk to us. The 30+ page proposal I hand delivered to the appointed agent was first claimed to have not been received and then, when i delivered another copy late on the afternoon of the closing day, i received a rejection letter from the agent in the next morning's post. I complained to the Echo, who covered the story, but were told by SWRDA that no decision had yet been reached - obviously a lie, since i had a rejection letter!
[quote][p][bold]February1948[/bold] wrote: Wasn't the development at Officers' Field intended to be used for social housing, or at least some of it? Or was that another ruse to reclaim open space from the people of Portland?[/p][/quote]Some of it was - the standard 30%. In fact, a friend of mine and I were involved in trying to get SWRDA to sell the land to a Community Land Trust so that the whole site could be developed as affordable homes. We had a developer (Affordable Homes UK) lined up, but SWRDA wouldn't even talk to us. The 30+ page proposal I hand delivered to the appointed agent was first claimed to have not been received and then, when i delivered another copy late on the afternoon of the closing day, i received a rejection letter from the agent in the next morning's post. I complained to the Echo, who covered the story, but were told by SWRDA that no decision had yet been reached - obviously a lie, since i had a rejection letter! JamesYoung
  • Score: 6

3:39pm Mon 18 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

The original story is here:

http://www.dorsetech
o.co.uk/news/2307141
.Island_space____cou
ld_house_social_home
s______/
The original story is here: http://www.dorsetech o.co.uk/news/2307141 .Island_space____cou ld_house_social_home s______/ JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

4:25pm Mon 18 Aug 14

PHonnor says...

Developers trying to get out of their requirement to build a certain % of social housing is going on everywhere, for instance developers in London and paying councils hundreds of millions to avoid building and how much of this money is used by social housing by councils? property developing is a speculative art, the developer takes the risk that what they build will make them a profit but this should not be at the expense of those who need affordable housing, you win some your loose some
Developers trying to get out of their requirement to build a certain % of social housing is going on everywhere, for instance developers in London and paying councils hundreds of millions to avoid building and how much of this money is used by social housing by councils? property developing is a speculative art, the developer takes the risk that what they build will make them a profit but this should not be at the expense of those who need affordable housing, you win some your loose some PHonnor
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Mon 18 Aug 14

shy talk says...

“It argues that new unforeseen costs to do with the condition of the site – including a multi-million pound bill for stabilising a slope”

After the Wardroom and Senior Rate Mess was built in 1980. Two years later when I lived in the Senior Rates Mess (which is now flats). It was common knowledge that both buildings were unstable and sliding down the slope. Major cracks appeared on a daily bases, glass movement indicators broke and were replaced only to break again.

It seems Cormer Homes and Fulca Ltd have not done their surveys properly when buying the land from the MOD. Or was the selling price well under the going rate in 1999 and a large profit was to be made.
“It argues that new unforeseen costs to do with the condition of the site – including a multi-million pound bill for stabilising a slope” After the Wardroom and Senior Rate Mess was built in 1980. Two years later when I lived in the Senior Rates Mess (which is now flats). It was common knowledge that both buildings were unstable and sliding down the slope. Major cracks appeared on a daily bases, glass movement indicators broke and were replaced only to break again. It seems Cormer Homes and Fulca Ltd have not done their surveys properly when buying the land from the MOD. Or was the selling price well under the going rate in 1999 and a large profit was to be made. shy talk
  • Score: 11

5:49pm Mon 18 Aug 14

wurzelbasher says...

A forgone conclusion that the affordable homes plan would be dropped. Greed first, community benefit a long way second!
A forgone conclusion that the affordable homes plan would be dropped. Greed first, community benefit a long way second! wurzelbasher
  • Score: 3

5:56pm Mon 18 Aug 14

oldbrock says...

these developers should be reminded that they signed up for affordable homes and they should not get away with their scheme, this government keep shoving Austerity in our faces but those at the top don't appear to be suffering, its all a put up job to keep the lower orders in their places and should not be used as a lever for these people to get their own way
these developers should be reminded that they signed up for affordable homes and they should not get away with their scheme, this government keep shoving Austerity in our faces but those at the top don't appear to be suffering, its all a put up job to keep the lower orders in their places and should not be used as a lever for these people to get their own way oldbrock
  • Score: 6

6:00pm Mon 18 Aug 14

iansedwell says...

If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa.

W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.
If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa. W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people. iansedwell
  • Score: 7

6:49pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Caption Sensible says...

iansedwell wrote:
If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa.

W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.
What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area.

Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.
[quote][p][bold]iansedwell[/bold] wrote: If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa. W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.[/p][/quote]What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area. Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses. Caption Sensible
  • Score: -1

7:23pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Get a grip says...

If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.
If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works. Get a grip
  • Score: -1

7:28pm Mon 18 Aug 14

PHonnor says...

Caption Sensible wrote:
iansedwell wrote:
If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa.

W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.
What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area.

Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.
To get people to move back you need to be able to offer decent paying jobs before providing expensive homes. We see in the echo today that Weymouth has one of the highest repossessions in the region, that because people struggle to get on the housing ladder and luxury flats aren't going to help the issue. If comer homes make a loss than tough, it's the business they are in and can't win all the time.
[quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iansedwell[/bold] wrote: If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa. W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.[/p][/quote]What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area. Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.[/p][/quote]To get people to move back you need to be able to offer decent paying jobs before providing expensive homes. We see in the echo today that Weymouth has one of the highest repossessions in the region, that because people struggle to get on the housing ladder and luxury flats aren't going to help the issue. If comer homes make a loss than tough, it's the business they are in and can't win all the time. PHonnor
  • Score: 4

7:45pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Rocksalt says...

Get a grip wrote:
If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.
People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage.

I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.
[quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.[/p][/quote]People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage. I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be. Rocksalt
  • Score: 3

8:26pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Lawnsheds60 says...

I cannot comment about Weymouth, however, one thing I can say is that one thing Portland does NOT need is more houses - anywhere. There are unsold houses all over the Island.
I cannot comment about Weymouth, however, one thing I can say is that one thing Portland does NOT need is more houses - anywhere. There are unsold houses all over the Island. Lawnsheds60
  • Score: 5

9:00pm Mon 18 Aug 14

Caption Sensible says...

PHonnor wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
iansedwell wrote:
If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa.

W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.
What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area.

Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.
To get people to move back you need to be able to offer decent paying jobs before providing expensive homes. We see in the echo today that Weymouth has one of the highest repossessions in the region, that because people struggle to get on the housing ladder and luxury flats aren't going to help the issue. If comer homes make a loss than tough, it's the business they are in and can't win all the time.
No self-respecting private business will operate at a loss. With this in mind those disused blocks will stay as they are if there is no profit to be made. Profit is not actually a dirty word...

In regards to decent paying jobs the key is an educated and well trained entrepreneurial workforce. You will only reach critical mass when a proper institute of higher education is set up in the area e.g. University of Dorset.
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iansedwell[/bold] wrote: If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa. W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.[/p][/quote]What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area. Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.[/p][/quote]To get people to move back you need to be able to offer decent paying jobs before providing expensive homes. We see in the echo today that Weymouth has one of the highest repossessions in the region, that because people struggle to get on the housing ladder and luxury flats aren't going to help the issue. If comer homes make a loss than tough, it's the business they are in and can't win all the time.[/p][/quote]No self-respecting private business will operate at a loss. With this in mind those disused blocks will stay as they are if there is no profit to be made. Profit is not actually a dirty word... In regards to decent paying jobs the key is an educated and well trained entrepreneurial workforce. You will only reach critical mass when a proper institute of higher education is set up in the area e.g. University of Dorset. Caption Sensible
  • Score: -3

9:58pm Mon 18 Aug 14

portland rebel says...

Caption Sensible wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
iansedwell wrote:
If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa.

W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.
What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area.

Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.
To get people to move back you need to be able to offer decent paying jobs before providing expensive homes. We see in the echo today that Weymouth has one of the highest repossessions in the region, that because people struggle to get on the housing ladder and luxury flats aren't going to help the issue. If comer homes make a loss than tough, it's the business they are in and can't win all the time.
No self-respecting private business will operate at a loss. With this in mind those disused blocks will stay as they are if there is no profit to be made. Profit is not actually a dirty word...

In regards to decent paying jobs the key is an educated and well trained entrepreneurial workforce. You will only reach critical mass when a proper institute of higher education is set up in the area e.g. University of Dorset.
maybe you should get an education yourself, if you read the comments you will notice that it is mentioned more than once, that this area the average wage is 14k, a very large proportion of the employment is seasonal, and a lot of that is part time, it has no bearing how well educated anyone is if employers wont pay the wages, i am currently paid 40% of what i was earning 10yrs ago for the same job, funny thing is the companies that i work for manage to produce ever increasing profits and bonuses, for shareholders and senior management, and tell the workforce to accept cuts in numbers and pay because they cant afford the wage bill.
[quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iansedwell[/bold] wrote: If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa. W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.[/p][/quote]What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area. Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.[/p][/quote]To get people to move back you need to be able to offer decent paying jobs before providing expensive homes. We see in the echo today that Weymouth has one of the highest repossessions in the region, that because people struggle to get on the housing ladder and luxury flats aren't going to help the issue. If comer homes make a loss than tough, it's the business they are in and can't win all the time.[/p][/quote]No self-respecting private business will operate at a loss. With this in mind those disused blocks will stay as they are if there is no profit to be made. Profit is not actually a dirty word... In regards to decent paying jobs the key is an educated and well trained entrepreneurial workforce. You will only reach critical mass when a proper institute of higher education is set up in the area e.g. University of Dorset.[/p][/quote]maybe you should get an education yourself, if you read the comments you will notice that it is mentioned more than once, that this area the average wage is 14k, a very large proportion of the employment is seasonal, and a lot of that is part time, it has no bearing how well educated anyone is if employers wont pay the wages, i am currently paid 40% of what i was earning 10yrs ago for the same job, funny thing is the companies that i work for manage to produce ever increasing profits and bonuses, for shareholders and senior management, and tell the workforce to accept cuts in numbers and pay because they cant afford the wage bill. portland rebel
  • Score: 5

12:42am Tue 19 Aug 14

fastjet says...

notweymouth wrote:
Newground wrote:
notweymouth wrote:
They have down their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at the end of the day these converted pigeon lofts with no room to swing a cat will never attack more than people after a weekend retreats.
notweymouth,

I fear you have had a little too much to drink.
why do you say that? When I had a look at one, there were no wardrobes and the agent couldn't explain where they would go. Also I do not drink alcohol.
And to think these were Home For Lots Of Sailors What A Hard Life They Must Have Endured Before Modernisation.
[quote][p][bold]notweymouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notweymouth[/bold] wrote: They have down their best to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at the end of the day these converted pigeon lofts with no room to swing a cat will never attack more than people after a weekend retreats.[/p][/quote]notweymouth, I fear you have had a little too much to drink.[/p][/quote]why do you say that? When I had a look at one, there were no wardrobes and the agent couldn't explain where they would go. Also I do not drink alcohol.[/p][/quote]And to think these were Home For Lots Of Sailors What A Hard Life They Must Have Endured Before Modernisation. fastjet
  • Score: -1

12:45am Tue 19 Aug 14

1Kimberlin says...

This must be developed into homes for local people who can afford to either rent or buy them. We need more luxury accommodation like a boil on the bottom. To say the Dr's are overstretched is an understatement phoned for an appointment today,got one for next Thursday at 11 am.
There are rumors going around that almost all the house's left on the Perryfield Development have been purchased by Birmingham Council for overspill, what type of resident will hat attract? Then of course no one has mentioned on here as to what will happen to the old school sites in Underhill and at Royal Manor, how many more unaffordable houses will be shoved on them.As a matter of interest I know a young family who tried to by a house in Silklake Mews on the Isle, they had £25K for a deposit and their joint income as just over £44k p.a. They both work away and want to move back to Portland later in life so it would have been a buy to let purchase. They were told to "Come back when you have another £10k. £35K for a deposit what is that all about? It's only £5K more than I paid for my property. If this is progress romft
This must be developed into homes for local people who can afford to either rent or buy them. We need more luxury accommodation like a boil on the bottom. To say the Dr's are overstretched is an understatement phoned for an appointment today,got one for next Thursday at 11 am. There are rumors going around that almost all the house's left on the Perryfield Development have been purchased by Birmingham Council for overspill, what type of resident will hat attract? Then of course no one has mentioned on here as to what will happen to the old school sites in Underhill and at Royal Manor, how many more unaffordable houses will be shoved on them.As a matter of interest I know a young family who tried to by a house in Silklake Mews on the Isle, they had £25K for a deposit and their joint income as just over £44k p.a. They both work away and want to move back to Portland later in life so it would have been a buy to let purchase. They were told to "Come back when you have another £10k. £35K for a deposit what is that all about? It's only £5K more than I paid for my property. If this is progress romft 1Kimberlin
  • Score: 1

3:07am Tue 19 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

1Kimberlin wrote:
This must be developed into homes for local people who can afford to either rent or buy them. We need more luxury accommodation like a boil on the bottom. To say the Dr's are overstretched is an understatement phoned for an appointment today,got one for next Thursday at 11 am.
There are rumors going around that almost all the house's left on the Perryfield Development have been purchased by Birmingham Council for overspill, what type of resident will hat attract? Then of course no one has mentioned on here as to what will happen to the old school sites in Underhill and at Royal Manor, how many more unaffordable houses will be shoved on them.As a matter of interest I know a young family who tried to by a house in Silklake Mews on the Isle, they had £25K for a deposit and their joint income as just over £44k p.a. They both work away and want to move back to Portland later in life so it would have been a buy to let purchase. They were told to "Come back when you have another £10k. £35K for a deposit what is that all about? It's only £5K more than I paid for my property. If this is progress romft
Glad to hear it. The more would be rent-seeking BTL landlords are turned down by the banks the better. These people are a blight and the fact that they think they are providing a service should be no excuse. Over the last 5-6 years the amount of taxpayer cash funneled into lending to BTL landlords by the government runs into hundreds of billions. They then let their homes to tenants who have no stability and can't live a normal life (eg the right to paint a wall) without their agreement.
They are a very different breed to accidental landlords who have inherited, etc.
[quote][p][bold]1Kimberlin[/bold] wrote: This must be developed into homes for local people who can afford to either rent or buy them. We need more luxury accommodation like a boil on the bottom. To say the Dr's are overstretched is an understatement phoned for an appointment today,got one for next Thursday at 11 am. There are rumors going around that almost all the house's left on the Perryfield Development have been purchased by Birmingham Council for overspill, what type of resident will hat attract? Then of course no one has mentioned on here as to what will happen to the old school sites in Underhill and at Royal Manor, how many more unaffordable houses will be shoved on them.As a matter of interest I know a young family who tried to by a house in Silklake Mews on the Isle, they had £25K for a deposit and their joint income as just over £44k p.a. They both work away and want to move back to Portland later in life so it would have been a buy to let purchase. They were told to "Come back when you have another £10k. £35K for a deposit what is that all about? It's only £5K more than I paid for my property. If this is progress romft[/p][/quote]Glad to hear it. The more would be rent-seeking BTL landlords are turned down by the banks the better. These people are a blight and the fact that they think they are providing a service should be no excuse. Over the last 5-6 years the amount of taxpayer cash funneled into lending to BTL landlords by the government runs into hundreds of billions. They then let their homes to tenants who have no stability and can't live a normal life (eg the right to paint a wall) without their agreement. They are a very different breed to accidental landlords who have inherited, etc. JamesYoung
  • Score: 5

3:15am Tue 19 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

Rocksalt wrote:
Get a grip wrote:
If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.
People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage.

I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.
Well, if house prices had risen in line with wages, a 2 bed starter home in Broadwey would cost around £80k, so on that basis one of the homes you refer to on Portland absolutely would be affordable to a couple earning £14k each.
The problem is that the banks and media have been pushing the lie that house prices are linked to population growth. If so, why did they fall between 1992 and 1996? Why did they fall between 2008 and 2012? Answer: because it is progressively higher lending that has driven up prices. Bear in mind that the government has poured hundreds of billions into propping up the housing market to secure votes. All that needed to happen in 2008 to get affordable housing was a decision not to use MY taxes and yours to artificially create house inflation.
But no, like Brown before him Osborne decided to inflate house prices to create an illusion of growth. House price increases don't show in inflation figures any more, but they do show in GDP. So he can crow about a low inflation, growing economy when in fact the opposite is true.
Lastly, shared ownership has mostly been a disastrous trap for everybody who has bought into it.
In japan, prices fell by 70%. It could happen here too: it just needs buyers to realise that they are paying too much.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.[/p][/quote]People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage. I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.[/p][/quote]Well, if house prices had risen in line with wages, a 2 bed starter home in Broadwey would cost around £80k, so on that basis one of the homes you refer to on Portland absolutely would be affordable to a couple earning £14k each. The problem is that the banks and media have been pushing the lie that house prices are linked to population growth. If so, why did they fall between 1992 and 1996? Why did they fall between 2008 and 2012? Answer: because it is progressively higher lending that has driven up prices. Bear in mind that the government has poured hundreds of billions into propping up the housing market to secure votes. All that needed to happen in 2008 to get affordable housing was a decision not to use MY taxes and yours to artificially create house inflation. But no, like Brown before him Osborne decided to inflate house prices to create an illusion of growth. House price increases don't show in inflation figures any more, but they do show in GDP. So he can crow about a low inflation, growing economy when in fact the opposite is true. Lastly, shared ownership has mostly been a disastrous trap for everybody who has bought into it. In japan, prices fell by 70%. It could happen here too: it just needs buyers to realise that they are paying too much. JamesYoung
  • Score: 2

6:45am Tue 19 Aug 14

randomperson says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
Get a grip wrote: If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.
People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage. I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.
Well, if house prices had risen in line with wages, a 2 bed starter home in Broadwey would cost around £80k, so on that basis one of the homes you refer to on Portland absolutely would be affordable to a couple earning £14k each. The problem is that the banks and media have been pushing the lie that house prices are linked to population growth. If so, why did they fall between 1992 and 1996? Why did they fall between 2008 and 2012? Answer: because it is progressively higher lending that has driven up prices. Bear in mind that the government has poured hundreds of billions into propping up the housing market to secure votes. All that needed to happen in 2008 to get affordable housing was a decision not to use MY taxes and yours to artificially create house inflation. But no, like Brown before him Osborne decided to inflate house prices to create an illusion of growth. House price increases don't show in inflation figures any more, but they do show in GDP. So he can crow about a low inflation, growing economy when in fact the opposite is true. Lastly, shared ownership has mostly been a disastrous trap for everybody who has bought into it. In japan, prices fell by 70%. It could happen here too: it just needs buyers to realise that they are paying too much.
Completely agree. Is that proper Broadwey or estate agent Broadwey, aka Littlemoor? The BS surrounding as well as the prices are crazy, it seems the former is used to justify the latter when it comes to building/buying houses.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.[/p][/quote]People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage. I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.[/p][/quote]Well, if house prices had risen in line with wages, a 2 bed starter home in Broadwey would cost around £80k, so on that basis one of the homes you refer to on Portland absolutely would be affordable to a couple earning £14k each. The problem is that the banks and media have been pushing the lie that house prices are linked to population growth. If so, why did they fall between 1992 and 1996? Why did they fall between 2008 and 2012? Answer: because it is progressively higher lending that has driven up prices. Bear in mind that the government has poured hundreds of billions into propping up the housing market to secure votes. All that needed to happen in 2008 to get affordable housing was a decision not to use MY taxes and yours to artificially create house inflation. But no, like Brown before him Osborne decided to inflate house prices to create an illusion of growth. House price increases don't show in inflation figures any more, but they do show in GDP. So he can crow about a low inflation, growing economy when in fact the opposite is true. Lastly, shared ownership has mostly been a disastrous trap for everybody who has bought into it. In japan, prices fell by 70%. It could happen here too: it just needs buyers to realise that they are paying too much.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Is that proper Broadwey or estate agent Broadwey, aka Littlemoor? The BS surrounding as well as the prices are crazy, it seems the former is used to justify the latter when it comes to building/buying houses. randomperson
  • Score: 2

8:15am Tue 19 Aug 14

Rocksalt says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
Get a grip wrote:
If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.
People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage.

I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.
Well, if house prices had risen in line with wages, a 2 bed starter home in Broadwey would cost around £80k, so on that basis one of the homes you refer to on Portland absolutely would be affordable to a couple earning £14k each.
The problem is that the banks and media have been pushing the lie that house prices are linked to population growth. If so, why did they fall between 1992 and 1996? Why did they fall between 2008 and 2012? Answer: because it is progressively higher lending that has driven up prices. Bear in mind that the government has poured hundreds of billions into propping up the housing market to secure votes. All that needed to happen in 2008 to get affordable housing was a decision not to use MY taxes and yours to artificially create house inflation.
But no, like Brown before him Osborne decided to inflate house prices to create an illusion of growth. House price increases don't show in inflation figures any more, but they do show in GDP. So he can crow about a low inflation, growing economy when in fact the opposite is true.
Lastly, shared ownership has mostly been a disastrous trap for everybody who has bought into it.
In japan, prices fell by 70%. It could happen here too: it just needs buyers to realise that they are paying too much.
I don't disagree that prices have been artificially maintained. But it's also true that in some parts of the country an increase in population and in the number of households ( more people living alone) has placed an upward pressure on prices. For example, in the town where my mother lives the official population increased by 30,000 between 2001 and 201 to 200,000. The actual rise was almost certainly higher - you can only record six people on a census form and there are many, many homes in multiple occupancy.

Anyway, the trend has been for houses to be rented to multiple tenants. Ordinary semis are effextively turned into bedsits for 5 or more people. And these are working people earning £20,000. But the maths are simple. 5 people paying £300 a month. That's a lot of money to be made from a house that might only have cost £150,000.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.[/p][/quote]People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage. I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.[/p][/quote]Well, if house prices had risen in line with wages, a 2 bed starter home in Broadwey would cost around £80k, so on that basis one of the homes you refer to on Portland absolutely would be affordable to a couple earning £14k each. The problem is that the banks and media have been pushing the lie that house prices are linked to population growth. If so, why did they fall between 1992 and 1996? Why did they fall between 2008 and 2012? Answer: because it is progressively higher lending that has driven up prices. Bear in mind that the government has poured hundreds of billions into propping up the housing market to secure votes. All that needed to happen in 2008 to get affordable housing was a decision not to use MY taxes and yours to artificially create house inflation. But no, like Brown before him Osborne decided to inflate house prices to create an illusion of growth. House price increases don't show in inflation figures any more, but they do show in GDP. So he can crow about a low inflation, growing economy when in fact the opposite is true. Lastly, shared ownership has mostly been a disastrous trap for everybody who has bought into it. In japan, prices fell by 70%. It could happen here too: it just needs buyers to realise that they are paying too much.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree that prices have been artificially maintained. But it's also true that in some parts of the country an increase in population and in the number of households ( more people living alone) has placed an upward pressure on prices. For example, in the town where my mother lives the official population increased by 30,000 between 2001 and 201 to 200,000. The actual rise was almost certainly higher - you can only record six people on a census form and there are many, many homes in multiple occupancy. Anyway, the trend has been for houses to be rented to multiple tenants. Ordinary semis are effextively turned into bedsits for 5 or more people. And these are working people earning £20,000. But the maths are simple. 5 people paying £300 a month. That's a lot of money to be made from a house that might only have cost £150,000. Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Caption Sensible says...

portland rebel wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
iansedwell wrote: If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa. W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.
What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area. Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.
To get people to move back you need to be able to offer decent paying jobs before providing expensive homes. We see in the echo today that Weymouth has one of the highest repossessions in the region, that because people struggle to get on the housing ladder and luxury flats aren't going to help the issue. If comer homes make a loss than tough, it's the business they are in and can't win all the time.
No self-respecting private business will operate at a loss. With this in mind those disused blocks will stay as they are if there is no profit to be made. Profit is not actually a dirty word... In regards to decent paying jobs the key is an educated and well trained entrepreneurial workforce. You will only reach critical mass when a proper institute of higher education is set up in the area e.g. University of Dorset.
maybe you should get an education yourself, if you read the comments you will notice that it is mentioned more than once, that this area the average wage is 14k, a very large proportion of the employment is seasonal, and a lot of that is part time, it has no bearing how well educated anyone is if employers wont pay the wages, i am currently paid 40% of what i was earning 10yrs ago for the same job, funny thing is the companies that i work for manage to produce ever increasing profits and bonuses, for shareholders and senior management, and tell the workforce to accept cuts in numbers and pay because they cant afford the wage bill.
I do not know where the 14k figure came from but the latest figures suggests it is nearer £19k.

Not so long ago this area had a very balanced economy and was based upon science, technology, engineering, brewing and the harbour, tourism was only part of the mix. We also had a proper technical college and Institute of Higher Education. Salaries were commensurate with employee’s professional qualifications and skills, the average person could afford their own home. Only when the economy, partially by design and partially by unforeseen events, switched to mainly a service-based economy, and also the area becoming a target for retirees, did the opportunities and salaries decline. Do you not see a correlation here?

Nothing will change until the economy becomes balanced once more and the young, entrepreneurial and the aspirational feel encouraged to realise their ambitions within the area. And the rebalancing of the economy will not happen until we have local politicians, organisations and individuals who really understand this and will do something it. At the moment it appears lip-service is paid to this concept and too many seem quite happy for things to remain the same. Hopefully the recent Guardian article will give this area the boot up the backside it needs!

I would suggest the companies you have worked for are getting away with it because there is no real competition. It is a very unfortunate situation and clearly is not right.

Incidentally, why does our local college for example not offer courses in computer science, marine engineering, software engineering, finance?
These are examples of the real wealth creation professions / industries.

Education and knowledge is the key to success. A real institute of higher education, following on from college seriously has to be considered in my opinion. This area has been in decline for far too long and it must be reversed
[quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iansedwell[/bold] wrote: If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa. W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.[/p][/quote]What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area. Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.[/p][/quote]To get people to move back you need to be able to offer decent paying jobs before providing expensive homes. We see in the echo today that Weymouth has one of the highest repossessions in the region, that because people struggle to get on the housing ladder and luxury flats aren't going to help the issue. If comer homes make a loss than tough, it's the business they are in and can't win all the time.[/p][/quote]No self-respecting private business will operate at a loss. With this in mind those disused blocks will stay as they are if there is no profit to be made. Profit is not actually a dirty word... In regards to decent paying jobs the key is an educated and well trained entrepreneurial workforce. You will only reach critical mass when a proper institute of higher education is set up in the area e.g. University of Dorset.[/p][/quote]maybe you should get an education yourself, if you read the comments you will notice that it is mentioned more than once, that this area the average wage is 14k, a very large proportion of the employment is seasonal, and a lot of that is part time, it has no bearing how well educated anyone is if employers wont pay the wages, i am currently paid 40% of what i was earning 10yrs ago for the same job, funny thing is the companies that i work for manage to produce ever increasing profits and bonuses, for shareholders and senior management, and tell the workforce to accept cuts in numbers and pay because they cant afford the wage bill.[/p][/quote]I do not know where the 14k figure came from but the latest figures suggests it is nearer £19k. Not so long ago this area had a very balanced economy and was based upon science, technology, engineering, brewing and the harbour, tourism was only part of the mix. We also had a proper technical college and Institute of Higher Education. Salaries were commensurate with employee’s professional qualifications and skills, the average person could afford their own home. Only when the economy, partially by design and partially by unforeseen events, switched to mainly a service-based economy, and also the area becoming a target for retirees, did the opportunities and salaries decline. Do you not see a correlation here? Nothing will change until the economy becomes balanced once more and the young, entrepreneurial and the aspirational feel encouraged to realise their ambitions within the area. And the rebalancing of the economy will not happen until we have local politicians, organisations and individuals who really understand this and will do something it. At the moment it appears lip-service is paid to this concept and too many seem quite happy for things to remain the same. Hopefully the recent Guardian article will give this area the boot up the backside it needs! I would suggest the companies you have worked for are getting away with it because there is no real competition. It is a very unfortunate situation and clearly is not right. Incidentally, why does our local college for example not offer courses in computer science, marine engineering, software engineering, finance? These are examples of the real wealth creation professions / industries. Education and knowledge is the key to success. A real institute of higher education, following on from college seriously has to be considered in my opinion. This area has been in decline for far too long and it must be reversed Caption Sensible
  • Score: 2

5:13pm Tue 19 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

Rocksalt wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
Get a grip wrote:
If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.
People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage.

I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.
Well, if house prices had risen in line with wages, a 2 bed starter home in Broadwey would cost around £80k, so on that basis one of the homes you refer to on Portland absolutely would be affordable to a couple earning £14k each.
The problem is that the banks and media have been pushing the lie that house prices are linked to population growth. If so, why did they fall between 1992 and 1996? Why did they fall between 2008 and 2012? Answer: because it is progressively higher lending that has driven up prices. Bear in mind that the government has poured hundreds of billions into propping up the housing market to secure votes. All that needed to happen in 2008 to get affordable housing was a decision not to use MY taxes and yours to artificially create house inflation.
But no, like Brown before him Osborne decided to inflate house prices to create an illusion of growth. House price increases don't show in inflation figures any more, but they do show in GDP. So he can crow about a low inflation, growing economy when in fact the opposite is true.
Lastly, shared ownership has mostly been a disastrous trap for everybody who has bought into it.
In japan, prices fell by 70%. It could happen here too: it just needs buyers to realise that they are paying too much.
I don't disagree that prices have been artificially maintained. But it's also true that in some parts of the country an increase in population and in the number of households ( more people living alone) has placed an upward pressure on prices. For example, in the town where my mother lives the official population increased by 30,000 between 2001 and 201 to 200,000. The actual rise was almost certainly higher - you can only record six people on a census form and there are many, many homes in multiple occupancy.

Anyway, the trend has been for houses to be rented to multiple tenants. Ordinary semis are effextively turned into bedsits for 5 or more people. And these are working people earning £20,000. But the maths are simple. 5 people paying £300 a month. That's a lot of money to be made from a house that might only have cost £150,000.
I think there is some truth in this, but it is credit that has created the problem. The danger, in your analysis, is mistaking types of demand. I did some analysis a while ago to prove Cosmicks argument that immigration was pushing up house prices (since i agreed with him) but I couldn't find the evidence to demonstrate this. I think that the government, media and estate agents talk about "population growth" and "demand" in a very underhand way.
A Ferrari franchise wouldn't claim that there were 54,000 people in Weymouth waiting to buy his car.
For some reason with house prices it is not admitted that many people cannot or will not buy a house.
High house prices, incidentally, exacerbate the problem. Bovis announces their results this week - they made more profit on higher selling prices. In an upward market, companies can make more profits on fewer homes, while watching the value of their land banks grow.
One final point: we now have more bedrooms per person than we had in 1983 and of the three countries that have more bedrooms per person than us, two are Ireland and Spain. And you know what happened there!
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.[/p][/quote]People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage. I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.[/p][/quote]Well, if house prices had risen in line with wages, a 2 bed starter home in Broadwey would cost around £80k, so on that basis one of the homes you refer to on Portland absolutely would be affordable to a couple earning £14k each. The problem is that the banks and media have been pushing the lie that house prices are linked to population growth. If so, why did they fall between 1992 and 1996? Why did they fall between 2008 and 2012? Answer: because it is progressively higher lending that has driven up prices. Bear in mind that the government has poured hundreds of billions into propping up the housing market to secure votes. All that needed to happen in 2008 to get affordable housing was a decision not to use MY taxes and yours to artificially create house inflation. But no, like Brown before him Osborne decided to inflate house prices to create an illusion of growth. House price increases don't show in inflation figures any more, but they do show in GDP. So he can crow about a low inflation, growing economy when in fact the opposite is true. Lastly, shared ownership has mostly been a disastrous trap for everybody who has bought into it. In japan, prices fell by 70%. It could happen here too: it just needs buyers to realise that they are paying too much.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree that prices have been artificially maintained. But it's also true that in some parts of the country an increase in population and in the number of households ( more people living alone) has placed an upward pressure on prices. For example, in the town where my mother lives the official population increased by 30,000 between 2001 and 201 to 200,000. The actual rise was almost certainly higher - you can only record six people on a census form and there are many, many homes in multiple occupancy. Anyway, the trend has been for houses to be rented to multiple tenants. Ordinary semis are effextively turned into bedsits for 5 or more people. And these are working people earning £20,000. But the maths are simple. 5 people paying £300 a month. That's a lot of money to be made from a house that might only have cost £150,000.[/p][/quote]I think there is some truth in this, but it is credit that has created the problem. The danger, in your analysis, is mistaking types of demand. I did some analysis a while ago to prove Cosmicks argument that immigration was pushing up house prices (since i agreed with him) but I couldn't find the evidence to demonstrate this. I think that the government, media and estate agents talk about "population growth" and "demand" in a very underhand way. A Ferrari franchise wouldn't claim that there were 54,000 people in Weymouth waiting to buy his car. For some reason with house prices it is not admitted that many people cannot or will not buy a house. High house prices, incidentally, exacerbate the problem. Bovis announces their results this week - they made more profit on higher selling prices. In an upward market, companies can make more profits on fewer homes, while watching the value of their land banks grow. One final point: we now have more bedrooms per person than we had in 1983 and of the three countries that have more bedrooms per person than us, two are Ireland and Spain. And you know what happened there! JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Tue 19 Aug 14

weymouthfox says...

"Mayor of Weymouth and Portland Kate Wheller welcomed the development at what she called an ‘eyesore’ site but urged the company to invest in local infrastructure. "
Doesn't the Mayor live in the next block? Thats just as much of an eyesore as the empty block.
"Mayor of Weymouth and Portland Kate Wheller welcomed the development at what she called an ‘eyesore’ site but urged the company to invest in local infrastructure. " Doesn't the Mayor live in the next block? Thats just as much of an eyesore as the empty block. weymouthfox
  • Score: 2

6:09pm Tue 19 Aug 14

Rocksalt says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
Get a grip wrote:
If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.
People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage.

I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.
Well, if house prices had risen in line with wages, a 2 bed starter home in Broadwey would cost around £80k, so on that basis one of the homes you refer to on Portland absolutely would be affordable to a couple earning £14k each.
The problem is that the banks and media have been pushing the lie that house prices are linked to population growth. If so, why did they fall between 1992 and 1996? Why did they fall between 2008 and 2012? Answer: because it is progressively higher lending that has driven up prices. Bear in mind that the government has poured hundreds of billions into propping up the housing market to secure votes. All that needed to happen in 2008 to get affordable housing was a decision not to use MY taxes and yours to artificially create house inflation.
But no, like Brown before him Osborne decided to inflate house prices to create an illusion of growth. House price increases don't show in inflation figures any more, but they do show in GDP. So he can crow about a low inflation, growing economy when in fact the opposite is true.
Lastly, shared ownership has mostly been a disastrous trap for everybody who has bought into it.
In japan, prices fell by 70%. It could happen here too: it just needs buyers to realise that they are paying too much.
I don't disagree that prices have been artificially maintained. But it's also true that in some parts of the country an increase in population and in the number of households ( more people living alone) has placed an upward pressure on prices. For example, in the town where my mother lives the official population increased by 30,000 between 2001 and 201 to 200,000. The actual rise was almost certainly higher - you can only record six people on a census form and there are many, many homes in multiple occupancy.

Anyway, the trend has been for houses to be rented to multiple tenants. Ordinary semis are effextively turned into bedsits for 5 or more people. And these are working people earning £20,000. But the maths are simple. 5 people paying £300 a month. That's a lot of money to be made from a house that might only have cost £150,000.
I think there is some truth in this, but it is credit that has created the problem. The danger, in your analysis, is mistaking types of demand. I did some analysis a while ago to prove Cosmicks argument that immigration was pushing up house prices (since i agreed with him) but I couldn't find the evidence to demonstrate this. I think that the government, media and estate agents talk about "population growth" and "demand" in a very underhand way.
A Ferrari franchise wouldn't claim that there were 54,000 people in Weymouth waiting to buy his car.
For some reason with house prices it is not admitted that many people cannot or will not buy a house.
High house prices, incidentally, exacerbate the problem. Bovis announces their results this week - they made more profit on higher selling prices. In an upward market, companies can make more profits on fewer homes, while watching the value of their land banks grow.
One final point: we now have more bedrooms per person than we had in 1983 and of the three countries that have more bedrooms per person than us, two are Ireland and Spain. And you know what happened there!
The situation I describe is very much exacerbated by migration. I only mentioned the scenario where a 3 bed semi is turned into 5 bedsits ( Except they aren't bedsits as they share a kitchen and bathroom. On top of that is the scenario where 2 or three people occupy each room. And that certainly isn't going to show up on a census. But you do tend to notice if you live opposite.

This puts an upward pressure on prices as the amount that a house can yield in rent is twice what a family or 2/3 friends sharing might have paid.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Get a grip[/bold] wrote: If it is correct that the average pay is £14,000 then this is appalling, given that the average benefit claimant with 2 children can claim £24,000 in total makes you wonder why anyone works.[/p][/quote]People earning £14,000 are not going to be able to afford a home, however affordable you attempt to make it. If it's a couple earning £14,000 each they would still need to find someone prepared to lend them at least 4 times their joint income. And that presupposes that someone is going to build an affordable home for £100,000. Doesn't seem likely. What is more plausible is some form of shared ownership, albeit that means having to pay a sizeable rent as well as the mortgage. I am afraid that affordable homes are only likely to be afforded by those who are considerably better off. And to be fair there are already homes they could afford on the island, albeit they probably don't fancy them much. Nevertheless, there are a number of homes for sale at less than £100,000. Yes, it's a lot of money, but I suspect it's a lot cheaper than any affordable new home is ever going to be.[/p][/quote]Well, if house prices had risen in line with wages, a 2 bed starter home in Broadwey would cost around £80k, so on that basis one of the homes you refer to on Portland absolutely would be affordable to a couple earning £14k each. The problem is that the banks and media have been pushing the lie that house prices are linked to population growth. If so, why did they fall between 1992 and 1996? Why did they fall between 2008 and 2012? Answer: because it is progressively higher lending that has driven up prices. Bear in mind that the government has poured hundreds of billions into propping up the housing market to secure votes. All that needed to happen in 2008 to get affordable housing was a decision not to use MY taxes and yours to artificially create house inflation. But no, like Brown before him Osborne decided to inflate house prices to create an illusion of growth. House price increases don't show in inflation figures any more, but they do show in GDP. So he can crow about a low inflation, growing economy when in fact the opposite is true. Lastly, shared ownership has mostly been a disastrous trap for everybody who has bought into it. In japan, prices fell by 70%. It could happen here too: it just needs buyers to realise that they are paying too much.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree that prices have been artificially maintained. But it's also true that in some parts of the country an increase in population and in the number of households ( more people living alone) has placed an upward pressure on prices. For example, in the town where my mother lives the official population increased by 30,000 between 2001 and 201 to 200,000. The actual rise was almost certainly higher - you can only record six people on a census form and there are many, many homes in multiple occupancy. Anyway, the trend has been for houses to be rented to multiple tenants. Ordinary semis are effextively turned into bedsits for 5 or more people. And these are working people earning £20,000. But the maths are simple. 5 people paying £300 a month. That's a lot of money to be made from a house that might only have cost £150,000.[/p][/quote]I think there is some truth in this, but it is credit that has created the problem. The danger, in your analysis, is mistaking types of demand. I did some analysis a while ago to prove Cosmicks argument that immigration was pushing up house prices (since i agreed with him) but I couldn't find the evidence to demonstrate this. I think that the government, media and estate agents talk about "population growth" and "demand" in a very underhand way. A Ferrari franchise wouldn't claim that there were 54,000 people in Weymouth waiting to buy his car. For some reason with house prices it is not admitted that many people cannot or will not buy a house. High house prices, incidentally, exacerbate the problem. Bovis announces their results this week - they made more profit on higher selling prices. In an upward market, companies can make more profits on fewer homes, while watching the value of their land banks grow. One final point: we now have more bedrooms per person than we had in 1983 and of the three countries that have more bedrooms per person than us, two are Ireland and Spain. And you know what happened there![/p][/quote]The situation I describe is very much exacerbated by migration. I only mentioned the scenario where a 3 bed semi is turned into 5 bedsits ( Except they aren't bedsits as they share a kitchen and bathroom. On top of that is the scenario where 2 or three people occupy each room. And that certainly isn't going to show up on a census. But you do tend to notice if you live opposite. This puts an upward pressure on prices as the amount that a house can yield in rent is twice what a family or 2/3 friends sharing might have paid. Rocksalt
  • Score: 1

11:40pm Tue 19 Aug 14

bigfatlad says...

YES PORTLAND NEEDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING!!!
YES PORTLAND NEEDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING!!! bigfatlad
  • Score: 3

7:05am Sat 23 Aug 14

Caption Sensible says...

portland rebel wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
iansedwell wrote:
If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa.

W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.
What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area.

Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.
To get people to move back you need to be able to offer decent paying jobs before providing expensive homes. We see in the echo today that Weymouth has one of the highest repossessions in the region, that because people struggle to get on the housing ladder and luxury flats aren't going to help the issue. If comer homes make a loss than tough, it's the business they are in and can't win all the time.
No self-respecting private business will operate at a loss. With this in mind those disused blocks will stay as they are if there is no profit to be made. Profit is not actually a dirty word...

In regards to decent paying jobs the key is an educated and well trained entrepreneurial workforce. You will only reach critical mass when a proper institute of higher education is set up in the area e.g. University of Dorset.
maybe you should get an education yourself, if you read the comments you will notice that it is mentioned more than once, that this area the average wage is 14k, a very large proportion of the employment is seasonal, and a lot of that is part time, it has no bearing how well educated anyone is if employers wont pay the wages, i am currently paid 40% of what i was earning 10yrs ago for the same job, funny thing is the companies that i work for manage to produce ever increasing profits and bonuses, for shareholders and senior management, and tell the workforce to accept cuts in numbers and pay because they cant afford the wage bill.
:-)

Two things...

You start a sentence with a capital letter and the average salary in the area is around £19k, not £14k.
[quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iansedwell[/bold] wrote: If there is one thing Weymouth & Portland does not need it is yet more luxury accommodation. What it desperately needs is housing that is affordable to people living in Weymouth & Portland earning the average wage/salary for the area, i.e. £14,000pa. W&PBC must take a very hard line with Fulcra Ltd and Corner Homes and insist that they honour the original deal. I do not expect to see W&PBC again giving in to greedy developers, at the expense of local people.[/p][/quote]What Weymouth & Portland needs is people with aspiration and money to move back to the area. Fulcra Ltd / Comer Homes are a private company not a public body; hence they are under no obligation to provide masses of social housing. A proper public body should be set up to do that kind of thing e.g. Build Council Houses.[/p][/quote]To get people to move back you need to be able to offer decent paying jobs before providing expensive homes. We see in the echo today that Weymouth has one of the highest repossessions in the region, that because people struggle to get on the housing ladder and luxury flats aren't going to help the issue. If comer homes make a loss than tough, it's the business they are in and can't win all the time.[/p][/quote]No self-respecting private business will operate at a loss. With this in mind those disused blocks will stay as they are if there is no profit to be made. Profit is not actually a dirty word... In regards to decent paying jobs the key is an educated and well trained entrepreneurial workforce. You will only reach critical mass when a proper institute of higher education is set up in the area e.g. University of Dorset.[/p][/quote]maybe you should get an education yourself, if you read the comments you will notice that it is mentioned more than once, that this area the average wage is 14k, a very large proportion of the employment is seasonal, and a lot of that is part time, it has no bearing how well educated anyone is if employers wont pay the wages, i am currently paid 40% of what i was earning 10yrs ago for the same job, funny thing is the companies that i work for manage to produce ever increasing profits and bonuses, for shareholders and senior management, and tell the workforce to accept cuts in numbers and pay because they cant afford the wage bill.[/p][/quote]:-) Two things... You start a sentence with a capital letter and the average salary in the area is around £19k, not £14k. Caption Sensible
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree