Star date: 11th September 2018


New figures released by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) show that Salford lost 1,900 social rent properties between 2012-13 and 2016-17, thanks to conversions to so-called 'affordable rent', and people taking up the Right To Buy with no replacement properties being built.

The Salford Star has estimated that, hand in hand with this, the city has also lost over 1,000 affordable properties through not forcing developers to provide them via Section 106.

Full details here...

A new report being discussed by Greater Manchester Combined Authority's Planning and Housing Commission this week reveals that Salford has lost 1,900 social rent properties over the last four years, 2012-13 to 2016-17.

The causes of this, states the report, are the conversion of social rent properties, which are 40%-60% of market rents, to the more expensive 'affordable' rent, which is 80% of market rents, and the impact of Right To Buy (RTB).

"The loss in social rented homes is in part due to Government policy encouraging housing providers to convert existing social rented stock to affordable rent" the report explains "In Greater Manchester around 6% of local authority and housing provider stock (14,933 homes) is now affordable rent."

Meanwhile in Salford, between 1980-81 and 2016-17, a total of 11,190 houses have been lost through Right To Buy sales. Of the total receipts from these sales, tenants have received discounts of £5.85million since 2011-12, while the Treasury got £3.02million and Salford City Council a mere £2.19million, or just 20% of the total value of the houses.

Even worse, in 2012, the Government promised that the houses would be replaced on a one-to-one basis. But, as the report states, "Government data shows no social homes have been delivered in Greater Manchester using RTB receipts since this re-launch. Indeed, no work has started on replacement properties funded through RTB receipts since 2012-13."

So, no replacements of sold social housing, conversion of social rent to 'affordable' rent, plus a further 300 houses have disappeared from the total stock of Salford's Council and housing association properties (Salix Homes, City West et al), the report adds.*

It's a perfect social housing storm, which can be seen via growing waiting lists and the mushrooming of homelessness. The Salford Star has also estimated that over 1,000 social rent and affordable properties have been lost to the city through developers avoiding their obligations, either via 'viability' assessments as part of the Government's National Planning Policy Framework, or via Salford City Council's own developer-friendly policies in which new housing schemes don't have to provide a proportion of social housing in certain 'low value' areas of the city, or for 'high density' apartment blocks.**

Now, in response to a Government green paper on social housing, Salford City Mayor, Paul Dennett, who is also Greater Manchester Combined Authority Portfolio Lead for Housing, Homelessness and Infrastructure, has written to the Government demanding that councils should keep all the revenue from Right To Buy receipts, although in Salford most of the Council stock has been transferred to housing associations...

"The imposition of higher discounts on Right to Buy properties following the reinvigorated scheme in 2012 mean that in lower value areas, such as some parts of Greater Manchester, a discount of up to £78,000 leaves our local authorities with very little leftover in sales income" he states "With large sums also going back to the Treasury, the need to repay attributable debt, and the restrictions imposed on how we can use even the small sums remaining, this makes it impossible to replace the social rented homes we are losing, especially with the unprecedented cuts in central government funding which we have endured since 2010, at around 50 per cent in real terms.

"Your own figures show no additional homes have been delivered in Greater Manchester using Right to Buy receipts since 2012/13" he adds "The system clearly isn't working!"

What the Mayor fails to add is that Salford City Council's own developer-friendly planning policies aren't working either, with a review in the pipeline to finally change them...

* 'Affordable' housing figures combine social rent, affordable rent, intermediate rent, shared ownership and affordable home ownership delivery

** For a full background see previous Salford Star articles...

A Tour Through Salford Council Spin on Affordable Housing Ė click here

Manchester University Report Slams Failed Greater Manchester Development Policies Ė click here

Bob the regular wrote
at 10:24:12 on 20 September 2018
It is sad this this loss of council houses, very sad, but the thing is, the ones that disappear, are the ones that Tosser Dennetts council have knocked down and not replaced. Socialist spite and thinking would rather knock houses down than sell them. As far as I know, not one council house that has been right to buy has ever been knocked down by its new or subsequent owner. At a very good guess, I reckon about 10000 dwellings have been wasted by clown hall in the last 30 years, starting with 1000 on the stars masthead. does anyone know the true number? I would love to know? Never mind, keep voting Labour.

Rayofsunshine wrote
at 12:12:55 on 17 September 2018
The reason I ask about Labour Costs,Bob the regular,is in connection with your suggestiÚn that local people are given discounts on houses in exchange for work involved in construction. If there's no agreed method to calculate "The Labour Component" of the price of a new house, how would your discount to local people be determžned?

Bob the regular wrote
at 08:48:29 on 17 September 2018
Ray, that is the $64 000 dollar question.Or at least one of them. Ask how much things cost ooooo they all say, thats confidential. Ask 10 people you get 10 different answers. On average , I would go for 60% materials 40% labour. Brickwork 50 -50 . electrical 33-67, and so on. In the construction industries, we have people called quantity surveyors who work out what things cost.These people will tell you it costs 1150 to 1200 pound a sq metre to build houses. each one will tell you proudly how they built their own 300 sq metre house that only cost them 160 or 170 grand. they are the biggest liars in the world, but because they all wear nice suits people believe them.The tossers at the housing providers are easy meat for them. Look at the directors of all the building firms. not many chartered engineers amongst them,the guys who know about building, but plenty of quantity surveyors, chartered surveyors, chartered accountants, all with beemers ,private health schemes and fat pension pots. Carrilion had millions of them. greedy bastards the lot of them. Thats where the money goes. There must be plenty of lads in the building game who read this. you won't find one who says i am wrong. Just follow the money.

Rayofsunshine wrote
at 18:54:17 on 16 September 2018
Bob the regular, given your knowledge of construction, could you tell us,approximately what percentage of the price of a new build comes from the cost of labour?

at 07:03:45 on 16 September 2018
Donít get me wrong, Bob, I like the idea of locals taking charge of their local area and doing it up. My issue is I can see those who are doing the houses up renting or selling their projects to the more affluent and continuing the gentrification. Not only that, any social housing being built would be set apart and away from the Ďdo up to sell oní sites and running the risk of creating more run down estates and poor ghettos. So if this did take place Iíd like to see a caveat in contracts to make sure the estates are mixed, locals get first choice to buy or rent of 65% of the houses done up (because locals should always come first) and selling some houses at a discount (the people who did the houses up will still make a profit, just not excessive) so as to let some of the less well-off families to be able to own their own homes.

Bob the regular wrote
at 16:31:23 on 15 September 2018
Wrote makes a good point. The thing is ,we live in a democracy ,and there are a lot of people in our city who like social housing. The council are always going on about it but they are only paying lip service. This is why I suggested that the families housed in the second 2 houses might be on housing benefit.I am thinking about the poorist in our community, despite being called a tory here many times. Also it is the only way a council can keep all the right to buy receipt money, by building new affordable rent property. Now suppose after a few years, the circumstance of our two families have improved, perhaps their kids are a bit older, they may wish to buy their houses. Under right to buy rules, no matter how much discount they get, they will have to pay at least £70 000 to buy their house. Still a good deal. If they do that, the council pays the loan off, and nobody has lost out.By the way ,I am glad I have got you all thinking about this great waste going on in our city. I firmly believe that people , should be able to own their own home if they desire to. age , poor financial circumstances, or disability should not be a bar to it. The people of our city could get together ,on their own, and make a hundred or more companies to build houses, I don't think we could could get together to build one car making company on our own.

at 08:39:46 on 15 September 2018
Bob, you say social housing is ď... a trap for the poor.Ē Yet under your scheme social housing will still be built and people receiving HB will be in them? Are you not just perpetuating the Ďtrapí?

Bob the regular wrote
at 21:29:39 on 14 September 2018
Ray ,I know it is hard for you to believe what I say is true, but it is, just check it out. The exact wording of the rules for disposal of council land says that "they should get best value for it". This has been ruled to include giving it away for affordable housing. Look ,why don't you pop a letter in the post to Lord Prescott at the House of Lords and ask him. You would trust him to give you an honest answer wouldn't you? I trust him, and according to you I am a Tory dupe. If you can get a letter off him saying I am wrong, I am sure the editor of this journal, who must be as sick and tired or hearing from me as you are, will happily print it in full ,ad verbatum. Re Nigel. Thanks for getting back. I remember all these houses and flats being built. It's just a bloody big waste, terrible.

Nigel wrote
at 18:57:03 on 14 September 2018
Bob I don't think demolishing perfectly good council houses is a good idea when people are on waiting lists. They were tinned up for a couple of years. They now have empty flats above Mocha Parade that people could live in.

Rayofsunshine wrote
at 18:56:43 on 14 September 2018
Surely,Bob the regular,not all the land held by the council was obtained by "stealing off local peop ĺe"? I suspect that most of the council's land bank was amassed over many decades. Giving away part of the council's land bank might be construed as "a failure to maximise returns on corporate assets" and therefore subject to legal Áhallenge.

Bob the regular wrote
at 18:56:37 on 14 September 2018
Just thinking about mine and Rays recent posts about what the law says about the spending of capital receipts money from council sales. Ray sounds like someone who is a bit of a labour activist, he probably takes Dennetts word for gospel. Good to see loyalty even if it's misguided. If there is any doubt in Rays mind about the accuracy of what I have said, why doesn't he talk to his briefs. I don't mean his underpants, though if he talked to them he would probably get a better answer than he would get from Dennett. I mean people like Becky. Becky is a qualified lawyer specialising inter alia in land and property law. She is also shadow business secretary so she will know a thing or two about business things. He could perhaps, if he's a councilor ,have a chat with Miranda.Miranda tries her best to keep the council straight on legal things. You see Ray, it's easy to con people, like the labour council has conned you and most people in our city, than to get the people to admit that they have been conned.

Bob the regular wrote
at 14:46:31 on 14 September 2018
Sounds like Ray thinks my idea of housing people actually works, but he is trying to find a good reason as to why his beloved Labour party cannot do such a logical thing. point number one:-when Salford council sell anything, they very seldom sell the freehold, only a long lease ,say 999 or 250 years. for all intents and purposes this is as good as freehold, and it is the way 99.9999% of flats are sold. They do this so they can put in things such as covenants which are legally binding. such a covenant could be that the house was for owner occupation only, unless the council gave written permission for renting out. It could be that an owner had an overseas work contract for say 5 years.In view of the housing situation ,it would make sense for the council to grant permission for that one house for that period to be rented out. Covenants of this nature are easily enforced. second point:- it would be a very poor state of affairs if the council were unable to borrow money to do as I outlined, but if this were the case, the council could do the deal by gifting the houses and the land to one of our housing providers like City West or Salix. These organisations could then do what I suggested, either way, you would have 3 families housed at little cost. If Salford council are so hard up, where are they going to find the cash to knock these houses down? The bottom line is this, Salford council will not give the land away that they actually got paid for stealing off salford people. Lord Prescott has said many times that councils should make this land available. If councils sell this land at a profit, they have to give the money paid for it back to the government. If they give it away for local housing needs then the cost is written off. What our council is doing, is just speculating in land, to make money to cover their debts, but this will never happen ,all ponzi schemes fail, including theirs.

Rayofsunshine wrote
at 11:48:25 on 14 September 2018
Bob the regular,two points . I) Although the council can zone properties for owner occupation, given the current state of the law, developers could easily get out of a commitment to sic,"owner occupation". II) To my knowledge at present Salford does not have a budget to fund interventions into the local property market.

Bob the regular wrote
at 21:05:32 on 13 September 2018
Oh, by the way, I would still like to hear what the Salford guy, Nigel, has to say about my previous mad rantings.

Bob the regular wrote
at 21:05:22 on 13 September 2018
I agree with Ray on the point that the Tories do not like Social housing. Neither do I ,it's a trap for the poor. Salford Labour council don't like it as well, that's why they are knocking so many social housing houses down. The people who live in these houses should own them. If all the people who lived in these houses had owned them,they would not be knocking them down now. Why does the council not knock houses down in Worsley? Some houses there are much much older than these ones. Knocking houses down makes houses scarce, so the price for them goes up. I ask this question , why does our council not flog these houses in this article to a local builder. It could do this and put a covenant in saying they were for owner occupation. In todays market, about £60k each would be right. £40 000 to £45000 would put them straight. at £125 000 to £130 000 nice little houses for first time buyers, better than renting. A decent profit for renovators and work for local workers. Like I said before, this £60 000 could be put with£140 000 borrowed under existing rules and the council could build 2 new houses on land it owns on the area behind Beckys office on Langworthy road. The end result would be the council having a debt of £140 000, but owning two houses. it could put 2 families in these on housing benefit, and get £600 a month each. more than enough to pay the loan. The law says it can do that, why do they choose not to? Find me one Labour councilor who can find fault in my figures.

Rayofsunshine wrote
at 15:17:24 on 13 September 2018
Bob the regýlar, as I've požnted out before, you cannot divorce the provisioŮ of sociaĺ hÚusiŮg from the general Thatcherisation of the ecÚnomy. Since the early 1980's, the Tories have deliberately attempted to kill off social housing - they have been pursuiŮg this strategy partially to bÚost home ownership but the main objective was to fuel specýlative property booms! The council has exposed the fact that the government is not prepared to recycle right to buy monies into new social housing provision.

Bob the regular wrote
at 19:00:50 on 12 September 2018
wrote is both right and wrong. affordable by what the government and housing providers say is not affordable for all. If you are out of work or ill, then you cannot afford to pay your rent. If you take affordable as being what Salfords lead member for housing , Tracy Kelly says it is, the LHA rate, then it is affordable, and should be counted, because benefits will cover your rent if you are not working. Salford councils own definition of affordable is still a bit higher than social housing rent. I am no lover of Salford Council, but they are right on this point. Even so, there have been no houses built that rent out at this figure,(as far as I know) so if they are not there ,we cannot count them.

at 17:41:20 on 12 September 2018
Iím curious... how many actual social housing homes have been built since 2010? Ones classed Ďaffordable rentí obviously donít count. Itís all well and good blaming the Tories again (who are partially to blame of course) but itís Salford Council who consistantly let developers get away with not building social housing and not paying fees. The way the Councilís going itíll keep flogging land and housing to developers and people will eventually learn the meaning of Ďgentrificationí, then the whole Council will be seen as in the pockets of developers and not on the peopleís side. Then the Council will be cleared, and it would be entirely their own fault.

Bob the regular wrote
at 17:41:10 on 12 September 2018
Ray do not listen to the Tory bullshit I write, but listen to what Nigel said below me. Suppose the houses that Nigel talks about were worth £100 000 each. suppose that nigel had bought his house at a discount for say £60 000.The mortgage on that is about 50 quid a week. Regarding where the money goes,under the rules, Salix get £15 000, and the government £45 000. The government paid for the houses in the first place. The law says however that Salix can keep all the money if they build new houses, provide that they pay 70% of the cost of the new build. They can get this 70% by borrowing it, and Salix will get finance at 2% max. If our wonderful mayor gave Salix homes a bit of land, like some of the plots down Liverpool street, which the city council stole off people using government pathfinder cash, and the council got for nothing,then Salix could build 2 new homes for £100 000 each, because thats what the big firms say it costs. Its less than that of course, but we have to go by what they say.If they had done things that way we would have three families housed as opposed to none. The trouble is, Salford council want big money for the land they got for nothing. They need it to pay their massive debts.They know the shit will hit the fan one day, they are just trying to postpone that day, till all the old guard responsible have popped their clogs. What are the views of Nigel on what I have said? I suspect Nigel is just an ordinary working class guy,who has perhaps voted Labour all his life, putting his trust in a party that is supposidly for the benefit of the workers. By the way Ray , I am not a Tory, call me what you like, but not that.It was Thatcher who , before she was PM, who set up an education system that made sure the working class people were kept stupid and in the dark, and not to question their leaders, especially labour ones.The easy task for the Tories was keeping labour councilors stupid, that took little doing.

Rayofsunshine wrote
at 13:31:59 on 12 September 2018
As usual,Bob the regular has got the wrong end of the stick. As the article points out, it is the Treasury that is blÚcking provision of new social housing in Salford. Not so much Bob the regular,rather Tory Dupe!

Bob the regular wrote
at 09:18:28 on 12 September 2018
This is not the full picture. Dennett as usual is being ecconomic with the truth. If a housing provider under preserved right to buy (former council house taken over by likes of Salix). All of the sales money can be kept if a new house is to be built. This may mean that the local authority will have to gift spare land to a provider to make this financially possible. This land is what the councils got for nothing under pathfinder scheme. Land stolen from Salford citizens. Dennett and his mates would rather flog this for money to private developers. They do this so they can just about keep the wolves from the door.They would flog it to housing providers, but they want good cash for it. Tell you what ,lets ask Lord Prescott to come and look at whats going on here.I bet he would come if Becky asked him. Pathfinder was his idea, where he comes from, in Hull, the council gives land to housing providers. You cannot have one system for Hull and one for Salford. Dennett and his mates are greedy two faced bastards, but we all know that.

Nigel wrote
at 09:16:53 on 12 September 2018
Have you included all the council houses demolished near Mocha Parade and replaced with private homes? They were only around 30 years old and the tenants didn't want to leave.

Please enter your comment below:
Salford Star contact
Deli Lama
Contact us
phone: 07957 982960
Facebook       Twitter
Recent comments
You spoke ref. Peel Holdings working with us. Last week it was taking people 2 hourd to get home due to an accident on the motorw... [more]
I may not understand the way things work but not once did I see our Mayor stand up & stick up for our cause , all I could see was ... [more]
i was part of the troop i'm the founder of north staffs stormtroopers i do darth vader and also stormtrooper..was a great day with... [more]
Ok Ray , lets build 80 or 90 dirt cheap starter flats, and have lots of people living in the land that is surrounded by parkland.... [more]
Rayofsunshine - You should probably ask that question to the Mayor and his cabinet. However, while I agree with you, I do believe ... [more]


Help the Salford Star...

all donations welcome


More articles...


Star date: 21st January 2019


Tonight a Special Community Committee Meeting took place for Irlam and Cadishead to discuss the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework which proposes 1,600 houses to be built in the green belt near Irlam Station.

Passionate opposition speeches from the community covered all issues, from infrastructure to pollution, affordable housing to loss of Grade 1 agricultural land and the unstable site proposed for development. Not one single person present spoke in favour of the proposals.

Full details here...


Star date: 21st January 2019


Star Wars characters landed in Eccles Shopping Centre at the weekend and raised £132 for the Autistic Society of Greater Manchester. Alongside Darth Vader were Stormtroopers, a Wookiee, Jedis and more.

Full details here...


Star date: 20th January 2019


Manchester Meltdown 4
Wednesday 23rd January
The Peer Hat, Manchester

Four ace bands feature in Manchester Meltdown 4 this Wednesday, including two bands, Four Candles and Matthew Hopkins, who played at the Eagle Inn Salford Star Benefit last November. Ian Leslie chats with Matthew Hopkins' Julia about tales of mystery, magic and prostitution.

Full details here...


Star date: 20th January 2019


Salford's Margaret McHale turned one hundred this week as her six children and relatives gathered for a huge party at The Broughtons Care Home. Born in Hanky Park, Margaret moved around central Salford, to Ellor Street, Warburton Street and finally to Littleton Road, as part of the slum clearances.

A proper Salford lass, Margaret worked on Lancaster Bombers during the war and as a machinist in Strangeways, and, as the family partied with residents and staff, there were a zillion anecdotes that will echo with loads of local families.

Full details here...


Star date: 20th January 2019


Electricity North West, the region's power network operator, is looking to take on young Salford people and has places for craft apprenticeships, which include overhead line workers and cable jointers, and higher level apprenticeships, which include roles such as design and control engineer.

Full details here...


written and produced by Salfordians for Salfordians
with attitude and love xxx