| |
SALFORD CHERRY TREE COURT TO BE DEMOLISHED AS 127 PENDLETON HOUSES TO BE BUILT
|
|
Star date: 18th January 2021 'DILUTION' OF POOR PEOPLE IN PENDLETON CONTINUES... A decision has now been passed by Salford City Council to bulldoze the affordable block Cherry Tree Court, off Churchill Way, owned by Northern Counties Housing Association. Meanwhile, the Council will decide planning permission this week for 127 new properties around Amersham Street, opposite Lark Hill Primary School, that will include just 17 affordable properties, as Salford Council's 'dilution' of poor people in Pendleton continues. Full details here...
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
click image to enlarge
|
Pendleton Together plans "will lead to a dilution in the current concentration of economically inactive households" by "young professionals and individuals who wish to live in Pendleton" Salford City Council Business Plan to the Government.
This week will see the continuation of what many people have called Salford Council's 'social cleansing' policy in Pendleton. The area is the focus for a huge regeneration project, led by Pendleton Together and the Council, which has been going on for over ten years. The plans promised a city farm, elderly people's housing (extra care units), sports pitches and allotments, as well as new and refurbished housing. In the Business Case produced by Salford Council for the Government to approve the scheme it was noted that the plans "will lead to a dilution in the current concentration of economically inactive households" by "young professionals and individuals who wish to live in Pendleton". So, is there 'dilution' going on? The total number of demolitions and new build properties in the area vary according to which document you read. In the planning application letter from SP+ and Lovell Partnership for the latest Phase of the scheme, a total of 867 affordable properties have been demolished in the area, with a completion total of 1,508 new builds in the area. Yet, according to SP+ and Lovell Partnership's statements in the actual planning documents, 1,546 new properties will have been built by the end of the project. And according to Salford Council's planning documents, there have been 779 demolitions, rather than 867. Either way, the claim is that there will be 32% affordable housing within the whole scheme, or 514 affordable properties (from 1,546 dwellings). So, 867 (or 779) ex-affordable properties will be replaced by 514 affordable properties, meaning a loss of 353 (or 265) affordable properties – definitely a "dilution"! And that is without looking into how many of the 'affordable properties' are actually 'affordable'... The developers state that the final figure might be a lot less than 32% affordable housing, as the Pendleton Planning Guidance "acknowledged that variances in the rate of affordable housing delivery could be supported where the development as a whole maintained an affordable housing rate above 20%". For the latest Phase 3 scheme, which is set to be approved by Salford Council's Planning Panel this week, there are more number games. The application by SP+ and Lovell Partnership proposes 127 houses around the old Amersham Street area opposite Lark Hill Primary School, of which just 17 will be affordable (social rent). The applicants argue that while this represents just 13.6% affordable housing, rather than 30.4% promised in the original agreement, 42 'affordable units' have been built elsewhere in the Phase 3 'boundary', and thus the figure is 34.9% affordable. Whatever numbers are bandied around, looking at the regeneration as a whole, there is still a loss of hundreds of affordable properties. There is no Section 106 agreement or payments for the Pendleton scheme, just a 'Development Agreement' between Salford Council, which owns the land, and the developers. The original agreement was that there would be two allotment sites created within the Phase 3 scheme but now there is just one, to the south of Aylesbury Close, with seven houses to be built on the other allotment site north of Hodge Lane "to maintain scheme viability". The second allotment has been hived off to a "future development phase" – that, presumably, will also include the farm, extra care units and sports pitches. By which time, of course, the kids who were promised a farm and pitches will be adults, and the elderly promised special housing will be dead... Meanwhile, affordable housing at Cherry Tree Court, on Kiwi Street, off Churchill Way, is about to be bulldozed as the Council has passed permission for the bulldozers to move in on the block built between 1967 and 1970. The residents have been "decanted" elsewhere...
|
|
|
|
Sparky wrote
at 12:50:48 on 21 January 2021 |
|
|
| As a former electrician,perhaps I can explain to Rossi why the standards of workmanship are so low on these refurbs, and as to why there is a tendency to use trainee and lower grade labour on them. There is a shortage of skilled labour,and as a result,people can pick and choose where they want to work.Higher skilled sparks have traditionally favored industrial work,which is a bit more technical, but it is higher paid, more easily accessible and easier to do. Other sparks used to do new housing, which is relatively easier,clean but hard work. The ones at the bottom used to do this refurb work.This is very difficult when you have to work in houses where people are living in them. Why these housing associations and councils do this is beyond me.Some people have houses full of junk, and some stink to high heaven. you throw your guts up with the smell when you walk through the front door.I have a pal of mine who does all the really bad ones for a large electrical contractor. He goes in when their lads won't. He earns a bomb doing this and doesn't mind, he has a strong stomach.Some of the stories he tells you have you retching at the thought of them. He even takes a few pictures on his mobile to show us from time to time. What these daft housing people cannot get into their heads is the fact that you cannot do a good refurb in houses where people are living in them,full stop. Thats why things cost so much. I feel sorry also for the respectable tenants who keep their houses nice. It can be no fun for them having hairy arsed construction workers in and out of their homes while they are living there. |
|
|
?
|
Rossi wrote
at 11:35:35 on 21 January 2021 |
|
|
| The Truth Hurts, I'm the one who eats ringos. That being so you're not making any sense. Ray eats Aldo's own brand of wotsits, they're called Cheesy Puffs. He eats eight or nine packets in a single go, that's why he's got a big belly on him. Now who are you? Do you eat the Sushi? Is that what you're saying? And what does this make you, faux middle class, with pretensions of being Richard Gere in American Gigolo? So you're a raw fish eater, so what? That doesn't impress me. You a member of mensa as well? That wouldn't impress me either ... And I do know how to price up work on refurbishments, the cost of materials, labour, the hiring of scaffolding etc. |
|
|
?
|
The Truth Hurts wrote
at 21:25:57 on 20 January 2021 |
|
|
| @Rossi - I'm rather insulted that you confuse me with the labour councillor for whereveritis. Not only can you not price a job, you also can't tell the difference between someone who eats ringos and another who eats Sushi. |
|
|
?
|
ROSSI wrote
at 11:22:17 on 20 January 2021 |
|
|
| Bob's Fan Club, you're giving off vibes of latent failure. I'm detecting the red hand of Ray, Miss Becky's ex joey being behind that pseudonym. Just stick to your day job, Ray and help out the people of Riverside. And with regard the inflated costs, massive markups and the use of apprentice "learning on the job" labour, I know of that which I speak. The work that the residents of Magnolia Court endured several years ago was truly appalling in both the quality of the materials and the tradesmanship of the workers. And yes, the blag was that it was costing twenty five grand a flat. I was told this by one of the liaison officers employed by the construction company. She didn't spill the beans in a righteous way, but just made out that that was what was being spent on each flat. Which is nonsense. I could have got the materials that the used from either Wicks or B&Q for a combined total of about four thousand quid. |
|
|
?
|
Bobs Fan Club wrote
at 23:43:20 on 19 January 2021 |
|
|
| @Rossi - how do you know what the going rate for a job is ? or the cost of designing and installing kitchens ? when was the last time you did any work or paid for your own kitchen ?? give it a rest pal ... I'm embarrassed for you |
|
|
?
|
Rossi wrote
at 14:32:24 on 19 January 2021 |
|
|
| The reason why Fitzwarren works out at fifty five grand a flat, Bob, is because the firm's doing the work overcharge for what materials they use and also their labour costs. It's pure profit. They did the same at Magnolia about five years ago. We all got a new front door, worth maybe four hundred pounds, a kitchen worth seven hundred quid, and a bathroom with a cheap electric shower, which could have been bought from Wickes all combined for about eight hundred sovs. Then you have the labourers who were mostly young apprentices working under the supervision of an old timer ... And the estimated amount of money spent on each flat was about twenty five grand. What a joke. |
|
|
?
|
Bob wrote
at 12:21:43 on 19 January 2021 |
|
|
| This theory of social cleansing of the salford poor seems to fit. I would go further than that, I think our council hate all true salford people. You mention Cherry tree being pulled down. The site is only small,so it cannot be worth much. I bet it will cost 700 - 800 grand to pull it down. (hanover was 400k twenty years ago). Cherry tree was built at about the same time as Fitzwarren 50 years ago. Fitzwarren just had7.5 million spent on 135 flats renovations. This works out at exactly £55 555.56pence each. god knows how they managed to spend so much, I reckon £30k max. If northern counties housing just flogged that block for say a million, they would be a million in front. They could then spend that building new stuff on the clari site. With a base cost of say 10 grand a flat, and spending 30 grand a flat, a developer could then add his 20% profit on and flog them for £48k to young first time buyers from salford, the local kids who are priced out of the market, and cannot even get on the housing list. £48k flat, with 10% deposit , that would work out at about 25 quid a week mortgage. But no ,they would rather knock it down and I'll tell you why. Northern have got a grant from the tory government to pull this block down. You know, the same one that me ,Paul Ray and the rest of em call to high heaven.If northern had to pay themselves, it would be a different matter. Of course, I will now get people saying I am a tory for suggesting these flats get privatised, but its better than knocking them down. The housing problem for our young people who are better off ,is just as accute as it is for our poorer ones. What we are in effect doing ,is stoking up the fires of poverty. The young people who are working, are paying huge ammounts of rent to private landlords. when they get kids themselves,they also will increase the ranks of the worse off, and make matters worse. we got a shortage of housing, until we got enough, we shouldn't knock anything down that could be useful. |
|
|
?
|
wrote
at 11:27:46 on 19 January 2021 |
|
|
| Ok, fair enough and looks really good, But, they demolished the apple tree court blocks Etc About four years ago and the done nothing with that land yeah it looks a disgrace so how long is this new bill going to take it’s an absolute eyesore that wasteland |
|
|
?
|
The Truth Hurts wrote
at 09:43:34 on 19 January 2021 |
|
|
| I think this is a brilliant scheme -- look at the green space, the big gardens, and having a mix of privately owned and social housing works well in other countries and prevents crime ridden estates. The old council housing estate model is proven to be a failure... well done for trying something new. I just hope the quality of the build is good. |
|
|
?
|
TerryD wrote
at 06:38:03 on 19 January 2021 |
|
|
| They can try all they like, but they'll never totally gentrify Pendleton, too many people on benefits with their rent paid.
I'm sure any effort to move them would be met with successful legal challenges, what would the reason be for moving them? |
|
|
?
|
Milk float wrote
at 21:31:58 on 18 January 2021 |
|
|
| More of Salford’s Gentrification social cleansiing project , what’s the point of the Labour Party in Salford , Tory Lite more like |
|
|
?
|
Born Bred. wrote
at 18:47:33 on 18 January 2021 |
|
|
| Salford council housing waiting list will still have thousands of local Salford people on it. Many local Salford people have waited years for a decent place to live.. Still no housing development planned for the old Clarendon high school massive land off Churchill way, it's been empty roughly over 22 years now. You can fit 300 3bed houses on there. Does the council still own the land or does some housing company own it and are waiting for someone to give em a top price for the land. |
|
|
?
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
