£1 houses: Britain's Cheapest Street
Discussion
When the houses are finished, as some are and some of the owners are up to their eyes in credit card debt, loans and other high interest ways of borrowing money , I wonder if they could now mortgage the finished house and pay of the expensive borrowing ?
They could pay the mortgage off much quicker than the standard 25 year term if they wanted to be mortgage free.
I wonder what the houses would be valued at now they are finished ? Fully refurbished etc but in a street/area that they are.
They could pay the mortgage off much quicker than the standard 25 year term if they wanted to be mortgage free.
I wonder what the houses would be valued at now they are finished ? Fully refurbished etc but in a street/area that they are.
The guy signing off the work is a utter jobs worth IMO saying they need fire doors etc then back tracking. Utter bellend.
I had to laugh as the woman who has been waiting for 2 years to get into the house to start work and she kicked off as the damage was worse now was offered another house but rejected it! I have no sympathy at all for her.
I had to laugh as the woman who has been waiting for 2 years to get into the house to start work and she kicked off as the damage was worse now was offered another house but rejected it! I have no sympathy at all for her.
Kev_Mk3 said:
The guy signing off the work is a utter jobs worth IMO saying they need fire doors etc then back tracking. Utter bellend.
I had to laugh as the woman who has been waiting for 2 years to get into the house to start work and she kicked off as the damage was worse now was offered another house but rejected it! I have no sympathy at all for her.
YepI had to laugh as the woman who has been waiting for 2 years to get into the house to start work and she kicked off as the damage was worse now was offered another house but rejected it! I have no sympathy at all for her.
Lording it over them on his power trip.
I was quite impressed with the owners attitudes. His wife was upset not too far off going to pieces about the impending visit. He was calm, collected and IMHO would have challenged any delays handed down.
The guy signing off was a truly terrible communicator.
Thiough its possible as with all of this reality type TV that editing made certain people look a certain way
dom9 said:
227bhp said:
Saleen836 said:
dom9 said:
Mrs9 tells me that her mate who owns one parks her leased (so I assume new) Audi on the street there...
I can't see that being a good idea from what we saw in the first episode so I can only imagine things are already somewhat 'better' there already.
If that's the result of the 'regeneration'; surely that can only be a good thing?
She is a teacher at what sounds like a hell-ish school, so also a 'key worker', supporting and hopefully helping the community.
Obviously we have some bias but if the council makes some tax off them (as opposed to spending money demolishing and regenerating the area themselves) and the area 'gentrifies' (to use a word I dislike) then great.
It's not like they removed people, who are now elsewhere - the place was empty with no real means (without the council spending every local's tax money) to sort it.
I thought they did relocate the residents? the whole area was due to be razed to the ground and rebuilt but government funding was cancelled so the houses were just left to rot for 10 odd years.I can't see that being a good idea from what we saw in the first episode so I can only imagine things are already somewhat 'better' there already.
If that's the result of the 'regeneration'; surely that can only be a good thing?
She is a teacher at what sounds like a hell-ish school, so also a 'key worker', supporting and hopefully helping the community.
Obviously we have some bias but if the council makes some tax off them (as opposed to spending money demolishing and regenerating the area themselves) and the area 'gentrifies' (to use a word I dislike) then great.
It's not like they removed people, who are now elsewhere - the place was empty with no real means (without the council spending every local's tax money) to sort it.
Basically it was John Prescott waging war on the "pre 1919 2 up 2 down terrace house" and identifying nice parcels of land to sell off to preferred developers to build more expensive houses that they could sell to first time buyers with the gov. shared ownership scheme at the time.
The definition of a unfit for human habitation house was that your kitchen was older than 5 years and your bathroom was older than 10years.
the gov allocated £1Bn mainly to CPO houses and demolish the houses, then sell of the land for new housing. Altho in some cases they did spend money on "refurbishing" housing.
In my area, the council first sandblasted the stone terrace houses on one side of the main road. then announced that the other side of the main road suffered from being 50% unoccupied, and the houses where all unfit for human habitation: which was all a lie... based on a consultation document in which they canvased in the local market asking should the houses be A) Refurbished/Demolished or B) do nothing.
They backed down when pretty much every resident in the demolition zone turned up to a council meeting and said the only way the council would get us out was to CPO the houses... after that the demolition was dropped and they offered to sand blast the houses and paint the window reveals.
Liverpool council for years was hell bent on going ahead with the demolition of all the houses they had CPOed from the residents in this area and in the Welsh Streets area - it was a change of government that's forced their hand. Liverpool council boarded the houses up and left them to rot for 10 years refusing to release the houses back into private ownership til now. I think there is still a feeling in the council that they want the £1 scheme to fail so they can be proved right: that the houses should have been demolished and the land sold to the right delveloper
Gavia said:
Yipper said:
Giving away free, taxpayer-subsidized houses to people with ~£60k cash in their bank account is:
a) a serious and wasteful abuse of scarce public money;
b) not a longterm solution to local economic decline.
It is just window-dressing and pretending everything is okay because somewhere has a flower box outside the front door.
What a load of ba) a serious and wasteful abuse of scarce public money;
b) not a longterm solution to local economic decline.
It is just window-dressing and pretending everything is okay because somewhere has a flower box outside the front door.
ks. They are derelict houses. They need to have £10k and a way to fund the balance as the houses are completely shagged. What’s your proposal? Let them fall down?
How did they become (1) derelict and (2) owned by the council?
Yet more wasteful use of public money.
monthefish said:
You’re missing the point.
How did they become (1) derelict and (2) owned by the council?
Yet more wasteful use of public money.
I’m not missing the point at all. The previous scheme was the one that led to them being derelict and owned by the council. This scheme either exists and let’s them get regenerated, or it doesn’t and they remain derelict until they have to be demolished. Meanwhile the sHow did they become (1) derelict and (2) owned by the council?
Yet more wasteful use of public money.
tty area becomes progressively even sttier, whereas this route brings others in to the area to maybe, allow it to improve.Oh and a group of families find themselves unable to get onto the housing ladder, this would be compounded by selling the houses off to developers, who’d insist on the other houses being cleared out too.
I think it’s a radical idea, that was worth trying. There are undoubtedly a lot of lessons to be learned, but certainly better than leaving the houses and area to rot.
Gavia said:
monthefish said:
You’re missing the point.
How did they become (1) derelict and (2) owned by the council?
Yet more wasteful use of public money.
I’m not missing the point at all. The previous scheme was the one that led to them being derelict and owned by the council. How did they become (1) derelict and (2) owned by the council?
Yet more wasteful use of public money.
Gavia said:
This scheme either exists and let’s them get regenerated, or it doesn’t and they remain derelict until they have to be demolished. Meanwhile the stty area becomes progressively even sttier, whereas this route brings others in to the area to maybe, allow it to improve.
Oh and a group of families find themselves unable to get onto the housing ladder, this would be compounded by selling the houses off to developers, who’d insist on the other houses being cleared out too.
I think it’s a radical idea, that was worth trying. There are undoubtedly a lot of lessons to be learned, but certainly better than leaving the houses and area to rot.
Definitely not let them rot.tty area becomes progressively even sttier, whereas this route brings others in to the area to maybe, allow it to improve.Oh and a group of families find themselves unable to get onto the housing ladder, this would be compounded by selling the houses off to developers, who’d insist on the other houses being cleared out too.
I think it’s a radical idea, that was worth trying. There are undoubtedly a lot of lessons to be learned, but certainly better than leaving the houses and area to rot.
Putting aside the lost money in letting the houses rot in the first place, if they'd sold the houses for circa £50k per unit to a private developer or developers, the end effect would be £5million in the councils coffers which could have been used to house those who really needed housed, and the vast majority of the houses would almost certainly be complete by now.
As it's turned out, after 3 years only one-fifth(?) of the 100 houses have been refurbished, and the houses have gone to those who, with access to circa £50k, probably aren't the most deserving of a leg up from the council, with no net income to the council.
It's not a god-given right to own a property.
monthefish said:
Gavia said:
monthefish said:
You’re missing the point.
How did they become (1) derelict and (2) owned by the council?
Yet more wasteful use of public money.
I’m not missing the point at all. The previous scheme was the one that led to them being derelict and owned by the council. How did they become (1) derelict and (2) owned by the council?
Yet more wasteful use of public money.
Gavia said:
This scheme either exists and let’s them get regenerated, or it doesn’t and they remain derelict until they have to be demolished. Meanwhile the stty area becomes progressively even sttier, whereas this route brings others in to the area to maybe, allow it to improve.
Oh and a group of families find themselves unable to get onto the housing ladder, this would be compounded by selling the houses off to developers, who’d insist on the other houses being cleared out too.
I think it’s a radical idea, that was worth trying. There are undoubtedly a lot of lessons to be learned, but certainly better than leaving the houses and area to rot.
Definitely not let them rot.tty area becomes progressively even sttier, whereas this route brings others in to the area to maybe, allow it to improve.Oh and a group of families find themselves unable to get onto the housing ladder, this would be compounded by selling the houses off to developers, who’d insist on the other houses being cleared out too.
I think it’s a radical idea, that was worth trying. There are undoubtedly a lot of lessons to be learned, but certainly better than leaving the houses and area to rot.
Putting aside the lost money in letting the houses rot in the first place, if they'd sold the houses for circa £50k per unit to a private developer or developers, the end effect would be £5million in the councils coffers which could have been used to house those who really needed housed, and the vast majority of the houses would almost certainly be complete by now.
As it's turned out, after 3 years only one-fifth(?) of the 100 houses have been refurbished, and the houses have gone to those who, with access to circa £50k, probably aren't the most deserving of a leg up from the council, with no net income to the council.
It's not a god-given right to own a property.
They have access to £50k, it doesn’t mean they have savings at that level. Most have borrowed money in a different way to a mortgage to fund the houses. The council has worked with developers before and are trying something different. However, if you believe that a developer would pay £50k for those properties, then you’re dreaming. What’s funny is that if they had sold to developers, you’d probably take issue with that.
I’m baffled why you think a developer would spend c£80k (£50k purchase price and £30k renovation) to then hand the houses over to “those who need it most”.
A pilot scheme often doesn’t work as effectively as it could, or as a longstanding approach does. That’s why they’re pilot schemes and probable s come upmas you go that are corrected for the future if the pilot becomes BAU.
Councils aren’t corrupt, they’re just not very efficient and often hamstrung by politics. Just to cover off some stuff on personal politics. I’m a member of the Tory Party, live in the NW, but have little time for Scousers (football banter predominantly, although a group of the thieving b
ds dpstile my car a few moths ago). Gavia said:
The houses were bought as part of a scheme by one government, a change in government saw that scheme cancelled. Hardly the fault of a local council.
The timescale for action is certainly the fault of the council. The government didn't change overnight, and it you can bet that the reason why it wasn't complete before the change of government was due to the normal delays that occur within council organisations.Gavia said:
They have access to £50k, it doesn’t mean they have savings at that level. Most have borrowed money in a different way to a mortgage to fund the houses.
Irrelevant. The people who need the help the most housing help from the council struggle to access to £500, never mind £5,000 or £50,000.Gavia said:
However, if you believe that a developer would pay £50k for those properties, then you’re dreaming.
I'm a developer and if the margin is there, then no reason not to.Ok, if you're being picky, change my figures to £40k (so £4m to the council) and £40k to do up, with a £40k profit at a £120k sale price.
Gavia said:
What’s funny is that if they had sold to developers, you’d probably take issue with that.
Why do you think that?Gavia said:
I’m baffled why you think a developer would spend c£80k (£50k purchase price and £30k renovation) to then hand the houses over to “those who need it most”.
I never said that, or anything like it. The developers purchase the propeties from the council with clean title, develop and sell to whoever they want (open market).As I said, the net effect of that is that the council now have £4-5m in their coffers to perhaps develop a temporary housing unit elsewhere in the city.
Gavia said:
Councils aren’t corrupt, they’re just not very efficient and often hamstrung by politics.
Agreed. Which is why I get so pissed off when I hear of:(1) 'service cuts due to budget issues' because they squandered money, and
(2) genuine homeless people who the council say they can't really help due to not having the money to do so.
monthefish said:
Gavia said:
The houses were bought as part of a scheme by one government, a change in government saw that scheme cancelled. Hardly the fault of a local council.
The timescale for action is certainly the fault of the council. The government didn't change overnight, and it you can bet that the reason why it wasn't complete before the change of government was due to the normal delays that occur within council organisations.Gavia said:
They have access to £50k, it doesn’t mean they have savings at that level. Most have borrowed money in a different way to a mortgage to fund the houses.
Irrelevant. The people who need the help the most housing help from the council struggle to access to £500, never mind £5,000 or £50,000.Gavia said:
However, if you believe that a developer would pay £50k for those properties, then you’re dreaming.
I'm a developer and if the margin is there, then no reason not to.Ok, if you're being picky, change my figures to £40k (so £4m to the council) and £40k to do up, with a £40k profit at a £120k sale price.
Gavia said:
What’s funny is that if they had sold to developers, you’d probably take issue with that.
Why do you think that?Gavia said:
I’m baffled why you think a developer would spend c£80k (£50k purchase price and £30k renovation) to then hand the houses over to “those who need it most”.
I never said that, or anything like it. The developers purchase the propeties from the council with clean title, develop and sell to whoever they want (open market).As I said, the net effect of that is that the council now have £4-5m in their coffers to perhaps develop a temporary housing unit elsewhere in the city.
Gavia said:
Councils aren’t corrupt, they’re just not very efficient and often hamstrung by politics.
Agreed. Which is why I get so pissed off when I hear of:(1) 'service cuts due to budget issues' because they squandered money, and
(2) genuine homeless people who the council say they can't really help due to not having the money to do so.
The rest of your post is just politics, dressed up as caring for others. I’m a member of the Tory Party, very much a capitalist and don’t have a lot of love for Liverpool. However, even I can see that what they’ve done should be applauded. Whether it works or not is moot, they’ve tried to break with the normal route of disposing of derelict properties.
Just to pick up on upyour rant around councils again. This was a national scheme, funded and run nationally. Local councils had no input into any part of it, until the derelict properties were dumped back in their laps.
You need to accept that all forms of government are run by politics and that leads to waste. It has always been that way amd pretty much always will, even a one party state dictatorship will be corrupt, look at Southern Africa to see just how corrupt.
If you stop chopping up posts then I’ll reply to your next post, as it’s nigh on impossible to format things on an iPhone in the way you are and it makes it very difficult to reply to it.
Tempted not to reply to your post as you're obviously a very prejudiced individual, but I thought I should clarify one point you're spectacularly missing. (side note: A couple of my developments have seen a number of previously homeless people now housed - not all 'developers' are pure evil.)
I'm in Scotland. I'm about as far removed from the results of this scheme as anyone in the UK could be.
My point is that a different scheme could have seen (in the fullness of time) a greater number of more deserving people benefiting from the situation of having 100 derelict houses on their books.
Ideally, the council themselves would have done the properties up themselves (cutting those greedy, scrooge-like, developer sharks out of the picture
), amassing both the 'profit' of the renovation and not throwing away the £5m of housing stock, but I'm assuming the reason they didn't do this is that they didn't have the money to do so.
Perhaps wait until you get home to a PC to reply properly. Might also give you a chance to think about what you're posting instead of the unfounded drivel posted by you thus far.
Gavia said:
You object to anyone making profit out of residential housing, unless it’s you.
Absolute BS, and quite an unfounded attack.I'm in Scotland. I'm about as far removed from the results of this scheme as anyone in the UK could be.
My point is that a different scheme could have seen (in the fullness of time) a greater number of more deserving people benefiting from the situation of having 100 derelict houses on their books.
Ideally, the council themselves would have done the properties up themselves (cutting those greedy, scrooge-like, developer sharks out of the picture
), amassing both the 'profit' of the renovation and not throwing away the £5m of housing stock, but I'm assuming the reason they didn't do this is that they didn't have the money to do so.Gavia said:
If you stop chopping up posts then I’ll reply to your next post, as it’s nigh on impossible to format things on an iPhone in the way you are and it makes it very difficult to reply to it.
Aww, poor lamb. Perhaps wait until you get home to a PC to reply properly. Might also give you a chance to think about what you're posting instead of the unfounded drivel posted by you thus far.
Edited by monthefish on Monday 5th March 18:41
monthefish said:
Tempted not to reply to your post as you're obviously a very prejudiced individual, but I thought I should clarify one point you're spectacularly missing. (side note: A couple of my developments have seen a number of previously homeless people now housed - not all 'developers' are pure evil.)
I'm in Scotland. I'm about as far removed from the results of this scheme as anyone in the UK could be.
My point is that a different scheme could have seen (in the fullness of time) a greater number of more deserving people benefiting from the situation of having 100 derelict houses on their books.
Ideally, the council themselves would have done the properties up themselves (cutting those greedy, scrooge-like, developer sharks out of the picture ), amassing both the 'profit' of the renovation and not throwing away the £5m of housing stock, but I'm assuming the reason they didn't do this is that they didn't have the money to do so.
Perhaps wait until you get home to a PC to reply properly. Might also give you a chance to think about what you're posting instead of the unfounded drivel posted by you thus far.
I don’t use laptops or computers any more, iPad / iPhone suffice for the vast majority of my life. Gavia said:
You object to anyone making profit out of residential housing, unless it’s you.
Absolute BS, and quite an unfounded attack.I'm in Scotland. I'm about as far removed from the results of this scheme as anyone in the UK could be.
My point is that a different scheme could have seen (in the fullness of time) a greater number of more deserving people benefiting from the situation of having 100 derelict houses on their books.
Ideally, the council themselves would have done the properties up themselves (cutting those greedy, scrooge-like, developer sharks out of the picture
), amassing both the 'profit' of the renovation and not throwing away the £5m of housing stock, but I'm assuming the reason they didn't do this is that they didn't have the money to do so.Gavia said:
If you stop chopping up posts then I’ll reply to your next post, as it’s nigh on impossible to format things on an iPhone in the way you are and it makes it very difficult to reply to it.
Aww, poor lamb. Perhaps wait until you get home to a PC to reply properly. Might also give you a chance to think about what you're posting instead of the unfounded drivel posted by you thus far.
Edited by monthefish on Monday 5th March 18:41
I’ve clearly touched a nerve with you, with the double insults in the last post. Not sure how I’m prejudiced, other than local rivalry with Liverpool.
I take itbthe lack of substance in your reply this time around means that there was more than a hint of truth in my posts. There is nothing wrong with landowners trying multiple routes to dispose of it if it’s unwanted. Competition for the developers is a good thing IMO.
Driver101 said:
That's a st situation they've been left in. The scheme was only going to work if the other houses were done too.
I couldn't live in that st hole and scared to leave the house no matter how cheap it was.
Indeed. It's an excellent idea, executed terribly by people/departments who are no good at their jobs. t situation they've been left in. The scheme was only going to work if the other houses were done too. I couldn't live in that s
t hole and scared to leave the house no matter how cheap it was.
Meridius said:
I know Wavertree a little bit and always thought it was funny if you start at the end with the big park and Athletics club is quite nice, then as you go towards the city centre up Smithdown Rd, literally street by street it gets continually worse until you get to the Webster Triangle that is like some apocalyptic wasteland. Google street view 'Garrick Street, L7' and you can see for yourselves.
Do like Liverpool though, its a great city with nice character, a lot of the south side is gentrified and on its way up.
I did just that just now - Google Street View. If you go back in the year chunks it allows it is tragic to see what parts of that street were like in 2008. Genuinely tragic to see the declineDo like Liverpool though, its a great city with nice character, a lot of the south side is gentrified and on its way up.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff