50 new homes could be built on eyesore (From Southend Standard)

It's not an eyesore and would make a nice park. If you want to know what an eyesore looks like have a look at Victoria Avenue or the office block at the old gas works site.

A school please. Not Bucharest or Sofia Estate.

When I hear the words affordable homes I want to reach for my gun! This usually means social housing,(i.e. a free house), for people who can't pay the rent and rely on someone else to pay for them. Agree with Reptile, that monstrosity on the sea-front is an absolute disgrace.

reptile wrote:
It's not an eyesore and would make a nice park. If you want to know what an eyesore looks like have a look at Victoria Avenue or the office block at the old gas works site.

I have never understood why a council, supposedly with people interests at heart, has never wanted to introduce new green spaces into the town for all to enjoy.

A couple of years back, you all remember, back when Renaissance Southend were churning out expensive CGI and costly consultations on a weekly basis, and our beloved Annie Waite was calling the shots, I'm sure we were promised this would be used for public space, art exhibitions etc.

Did Renaissance ever deliver on a promise?????

Anyway, reading through the article above there doesn't seem to be any mention of number of parking spaces???
Obviously it goes without saying there would need to be at least 50, could anyone from SBC confirm this? (somehow I doubt it!)
All SBC are interested in is 50 x council tax revenue, not the slightest concern for the additional congestion!

@Sir Peter Pantsless I think they park on those light grey areas in picture? I mean there is no need to worry about pedestrians is there.

Yuk.
Another estate.

'Affordable housing' so, within a year, 50 slums.

Everything is affordable if you earn enough. Nothing is affordable if you earn nothing. If you earn the average wage in Southend, then the average home in Southend is not affordable. If you need housing benefits to pay the rent then the rent is not affordable. Why are they allowed to use the word 'affordable' when it is obvious that, for most people, these homes will not be affordable.

We need affordable homes so those who are better off can buy them and charge those worse off unaffordable rents to live in them.

We were looking for a place to rent around Castle Point / Southend a couple of years ago and in many places where rented accommodation was common, many neighbouring houses were padlocked shut with overgrown gardens. We don't need more houses, we need fewer people owning them except for the purpose of living in them.

Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd wrote:
A couple of years back, you all remember, back when Renaissance Southend were churning out expensive CGI and costly consultations on a weekly basis, and our beloved Annie Waite was calling the shots, I'm sure we were promised this would be used for public space, art exhibitions etc.

Did Renaissance ever deliver on a promise?????

Anyway, reading through the article above there doesn't seem to be any mention of number of parking spaces???
Obviously it goes without saying there would need to be at least 50, could anyone from SBC confirm this? (somehow I doubt it!)
All SBC are interested in is 50 x council tax revenue, not the slightest concern for the additional congestion!

If its anything like the comedians round here who slap in to build a multitude of flats - they will claim they are following the 'green credentials' by supplying about two parking spaces and a load of bike racks which they will then say saves on pollution and will keep everyone healthy because they will bike everywhere (supermarket?) and walk - all total nonsense of course but seems totally ok with the planning dept who don't have to live in the nearby streets and deal with the overflow of cars.

i see the usual daily mail lickers are out in force..

Yes. We need low rent social housing as private landlords are bleeding the benefits system dry. Its not the tenants that benefit as long as the majority of workers are expected to live on minimum wage or just above.

No. I don't trust announcements for 'affordable housing' as they usually turn out to be high cost shoe boxes that a family are expected to squeeze into.

The day that everyone has the opportunity to earn £17 per hour, full time is the day that anything the daily mail produce can be classed as news..

Nebs wrote:
Everything is affordable if you earn enough. Nothing is affordable if you earn nothing. If you earn the average wage in Southend, then the average home in Southend is not affordable. If you need housing benefits to pay the rent then the rent is not affordable. Why are they allowed to use the word 'affordable' when it is obvious that, for most people, these homes will not be affordable.

I have been arguing this for years. I have asked MPs, Councillors and people involved in housing developments and housing departments to quantify "affordable". None have been able to do so (even when they have the decency to reply in the first place).

Good for the area, good for the town, I say build more affordable housing complexes, like the Kursaal estate..

Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd wrote:
A couple of years back, you all remember, back when Renaissance Southend were churning out expensive CGI and costly consultations on a weekly basis, and our beloved Annie Waite was calling the shots, I'm sure we were promised this would be used for public space, art exhibitions etc.

Did Renaissance ever deliver on a promise?????

Anyway, reading through the article above there doesn't seem to be any mention of number of parking spaces???
Obviously it goes without saying there would need to be at least 50, could anyone from SBC confirm this? (somehow I doubt it!)
All SBC are interested in is 50 x council tax revenue, not the slightest concern for the additional congestion!

Actually, it's not just the council tax revenue they are interested in. Under the Government's 'New Homes Bonus' scheme, the council will also receive a grant equal to 6 x the annual council tax for every new home it builds to spend as it likes.

".....i see the usual daily mail lickers are out in force...."

Do you mean you disagree with them, or you are a troll who enjoys ad hominem attacks when you have no argument and are in the minority?

Just wondering.

Rochford Rob wrote:
".....i see the usual daily mail lickers are out in force...."

Do you mean you disagree with them, or you are a troll who enjoys ad hominem attacks when you have no argument and are in the minority?

Just wondering.

If you quote and respond to the rest of my comment, you will find that I have already answered you points and provided a series of my opinions on the matter.

I think you will find its the 'daily mail lickers' that fulfil the function of 'troll' on this site...

The houses will be fine - it's the scum that goes in them that turns them into ghettos. You watch the future headlines "gang culture on new estate", "drug dealers plague new estate". And how many immigrants will take the new housing that should be for local people who have paid into the system or who's parents have paid into the system if they are disabled and cannot work. Local housing for local people - there's enough of them in the queue. Or alternatively give priority to ex armed forces who have done their bit for the country and have been thrown on the dole.

jayman wrote:

Rochford Rob wrote:
".....i see the usual daily mail lickers are out in force...."

Do you mean you disagree with them, or you are a troll who enjoys ad hominem attacks when you have no argument and are in the minority?

Just wondering.

If you quote and respond to the rest of my comment, you will find that I have already answered you points and provided a series of my opinions on the matter.

I think you will find its the 'daily mail lickers' that fulfil the function of 'troll' on this site...

You're wasting your eupnea, jayman.

A bit like, casting pearls before swine....

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

jayman wrote:

Rochford Rob wrote:
".....i see the usual daily mail lickers are out in force...."

Do you mean you disagree with them, or you are a troll who enjoys ad hominem attacks when you have no argument and are in the minority?

Just wondering.

If you quote and respond to the rest of my comment, you will find that I have already answered you points and provided a series of my opinions on the matter.

I think you will find its the 'daily mail lickers' that fulfil the function of 'troll' on this site...

You're wasting your eupnea, jayman.

A bit like, casting pearls before swine....

And thank you for your incisive contribution. Back to the point, what exactly do you mean by 'window licker'?? If it's what I think it alludes to, that is a disgusting and dreadful smear against disabled people.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

"........George Galloway criticised for 'window licker' tweet

Respect MP causes further controversy over use of derogatory term for disabled person following recent comments about rape....."

From the Gruaniad, so it must be true.

I've a mind to report you.

Rochford Rob wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

jayman wrote:

Rochford Rob wrote:
".....i see the usual daily mail lickers are out in force...."

Do you mean you disagree with them, or you are a troll who enjoys ad hominem attacks when you have no argument and are in the minority?

Just wondering.

If you quote and respond to the rest of my comment, you will find that I have already answered you points and provided a series of my opinions on the matter.

I think you will find its the 'daily mail lickers' that fulfil the function of 'troll' on this site...

You're wasting your eupnea, jayman.

A bit like, casting pearls before swine....

And thank you for your incisive contribution. Back to the point, what exactly do you mean by 'window licker'?? If it's what I think it alludes to, that is a disgusting and dreadful smear against disabled people.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

"........George Galloway criticised for 'window licker' tweet

Respect MP causes further controversy over use of derogatory term for disabled person following recent comments about rape....."

From the Gruaniad, so it must be true.

I've a mind to report you.

'And thank you for your incisive contribution'

Says the man whose own coruscating contribution includes...

'Affordable housing' so, within a year, 50 slums.

Penetrating stuff.. Ha!

Rochford Rob wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

jayman wrote:

Rochford Rob wrote:
".....i see the usual daily mail lickers are out in force...."

Do you mean you disagree with them, or you are a troll who enjoys ad hominem attacks when you have no argument and are in the minority?

Just wondering.

If you quote and respond to the rest of my comment, you will find that I have already answered you points and provided a series of my opinions on the matter.

I think you will find its the 'daily mail lickers' that fulfil the function of 'troll' on this site...

You're wasting your eupnea, jayman.

A bit like, casting pearls before swine....

And thank you for your incisive contribution. Back to the point, what exactly do you mean by 'window licker'?? If it's what I think it alludes to, that is a disgusting and dreadful smear against disabled people.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

"........George Galloway criticised for 'window licker' tweet

Respect MP causes further controversy over use of derogatory term for disabled person following recent comments about rape....."

From the Gruaniad, so it must be true.

I've a mind to report you.

oh god...

By the term I used 'daily mail licker' NOT 'window licker' as you have clearly misquoted, I was referring to the Tory/UKIP scum that open their right wing minds and lick the ink of the worst standard of journalism, seconded only by 'the sun'

Nebs wrote:
Everything is affordable if you earn enough. Nothing is affordable if you earn nothing. If you earn the average wage in Southend, then the average home in Southend is not affordable. If you need housing benefits to pay the rent then the rent is not affordable. Why are they allowed to use the word 'affordable' when it is obvious that, for most people, these homes will not be affordable.

Well done Nebs! Pure common sense, such a change from the usual "I wonder which group of hard ups I can slag off today?" kind of mentality which seems to be the normal here!