National Park losers.

[Sion]

Pembrokeshire's National Park have just endured a major blow to it's
discriminating Housing Policy.

A Tenby Widow applied for planning permission to convert a section of her
property into flats that would end up for sale on the open market.

Her application was turned down on the basis that she refused to agree to a
pre-condition that the completed build would "only" be offered to locals.

A High Court ruling agreed with the complainant, that she could sell on the
open market without further discrimination to "any" would be buyers, i.e.
anyone from whichever Country or Nation could buy the property without
preconditions except honouring the asking price and meeting normal "housing
market" trading practice.

After the embarrassing Pembrokeshire National Park defeat in the High Court,
the Park members have re-aligned their policy for the sake of avoiding
future Jack and Goliath cases. Again, "accountability" springs to mind or
the usual "collective bullshiting" that's normally seen until challenged
within the working class debris, i.e the public sector.

Makes me wonder? Considering the pressure from certain minorities to limit
housing availability to incomers, if one individual can wipe the floor with
a so-called bullying establishment, what can an experienced organisation
achieve?

I wondered this only a couple of weeks ago when the M6, M56 and A55
channelled the way for the visitors into Wales one Friday evening. How on
Earth I thought, can a group that gathers 200 or so in a "Houses for locals"
rally stop not only tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands potentially
think about residing where they wish as they entered Wales for a nice
weekend?

Anyway, I take my hat off to this lady. WELL DONE for getting off your
backside to provide housing in a Country that needs additional housing and
secondly, for not presenting pre-conditions to what "type" of people buy!

On the other hand I feel so sorry for these organisations that feel that the
locals have been let down by ex-pats that sold to the highest bidders! It's
a hard life! "Colonists Out", I think not!

Charity begins at home?

[Peter]

Post by Sion
Pembrokeshire's National Park have just endured a major blow to it's
discriminating Housing Policy.
A Tenby Widow applied for planning permission to convert a section of her
property into flats that would end up for sale on the open market.
Her application was turned down on the basis that she refused to agree to a
pre-condition that the completed build would "only" be offered to locals.

If the local authority had won the case how would this be enforced?
Would there have been a binding type covenant placed on the property,
only permitting future sales to "locals"

How was it proposed to define a "local" for the purposes of a
permitted purchase?

Post by Sion
After the embarrassing Pembrokeshire National Park defeat in the High Court,
the Park members have re-aligned their policy for the sake of avoiding
future Jack and Goliath cases. Again, "accountability" springs to mind or
the usual "collective bullshiting" that's normally seen until challenged
within the working class debris, i.e the public sector.

I guess you meant "David & Goliath" :-)

Post by Sion
Anyway, I take my hat off to this lady. WELL DONE for getting off your
backside to provide housing in a Country that needs additional housing and
secondly, for not presenting pre-conditions to what "type" of people buy!

I think this demonstrates one major problem with the policy - in many
cases it's "locals" that are selling their properties for prices that
other "locals" cannot afford.

[Sion]

Post by Peter

Post by Sion
Pembrokeshire's National Park have just endured a major blow to it's
discriminating Housing Policy.
A Tenby Widow applied for planning permission to convert a section of her
property into flats that would end up for sale on the open market.
Her application was turned down on the basis that she refused to agree to a
pre-condition that the completed build would "only" be offered to locals.

If the local authority had won the case how would this be enforced?
Would there have been a binding type covenant placed on the property,
only permitting future sales to "locals"

They would have simply turned down her planning application for
re-development. I'm not sure about this on whether it can be re-sold to
anyone after a cetain amount of time has elapsed.

Post by Peter
How was it proposed to define a "local" for the purposes of a
permitted purchase?

Some of the PDF files that are downloadable off one of their websites
probably contain this info. With certain documents being over 200 pages in
length, I haven't browsed sufficiently to provide with accuracy what their
"local" definition equates to. I do recall it including criteria such as,
being educated in the area, already living in the area, having relatives in
the area etc..

Post by Peter

Post by Sion
After the embarrassing Pembrokeshire National Park defeat in the High Court,
the Park members have re-aligned their policy for the sake of avoiding
future Jack and Goliath cases. Again, "accountability" springs to mind or
the usual "collective bullshiting" that's normally seen until challenged
within the working class debris, i.e the public sector.

I guess you meant "David & Goliath" :-)

That's the one Pete :-)

Post by Peter

Post by Sion
Anyway, I take my hat off to this lady. WELL DONE for getting off your
backside to provide housing in a Country that needs additional housing and
secondly, for not presenting pre-conditions to what "type" of people buy!

I think this demonstrates one major problem with the policy - in many
cases it's "locals" that are selling their properties for prices that
other "locals" cannot afford.

I agree. Much the reason for this. It's quite funny when you witness some
individuals turning up to these "housing for locals" rallies with the full
knowledge that they have a history themselves for selling to "any" highest
bidder.

Rather long winded but much can be viewed here:-

http://www.pembrokeshirecoast.org.uk/english/planning/p_policy/policy_main.a
sp

[Lyn David Thomas]

Post by Sion

Post by Peter
I think this demonstrates one major problem with the policy - in many
cases it's "locals" that are selling their properties for prices that
other "locals" cannot afford.

I agree. Much the reason for this. It's quite funny when you witness some
individuals turning up to these "housing for locals" rallies with the full
knowledge that they have a history themselves for selling to "any" highest
bidder.

OK then - as there is clearly a problem in these areas with affordable
housing for local people how would you solve the problem?

[Peter]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 07:33:50 +0100, "Lyn David Thomas"

Post by Lyn David Thomas

Post by Sion

Post by Peter
I think this demonstrates one major problem with the policy - in many
cases it's "locals" that are selling their properties for prices that
other "locals" cannot afford.

I agree. Much the reason for this. It's quite funny when you witness some
individuals turning up to these "housing for locals" rallies with the full
knowledge that they have a history themselves for selling to "any" highest
bidder.

OK then - as there is clearly a problem in these areas with affordable
housing for local people how would you solve the problem?

Perhaps creating a false market in property isn't the way to solve
this. How about the Assembly helps out by facilitating more local
authority housing?

[Lyn David Thomas]

Post by Lyn David Thomas
OK then - as there is clearly a problem in these areas with affordable
housing for local people how would you solve the problem?

Perhaps creating a false market in property isn't the way to solve this.
How about the Assembly helps out by facilitating more local authority
housing?

Ah a practical partial solution - yes more social housing is good idea -
its a pity that both the Tories and Labour have done their best to
restrict this.

Why does creating restrictions create a false property market? After all
there are plenty of restrictions at the moment. We don't have a free
market (fortunately).

[Peter]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:19:37 +0100, "Lyn David Thomas"

Post by Lyn David Thomas

Post by Lyn David Thomas
OK then - as there is clearly a problem in these areas with affordable
housing for local people how would you solve the problem?

Perhaps creating a false market in property isn't the way to solve this.
How about the Assembly helps out by facilitating more local authority
housing?

Ah a practical partial solution - yes more social housing is good idea -
its a pity that both the Tories and Labour have done their best to
restrict this.
Why does creating restrictions create a false property market? After all
there are plenty of restrictions at the moment. We don't have a free
market (fortunately).

AIUI, it is only new build or renovated properties that may only be
sold to "locals". This will create a shortage of properties that may
be freely traded. This shortage will have the effect of increasing
prices. Those "locals" that have been able to purchase properties at
artificially low prices will then sell after the embargo period to
cash in on the profits to be had. Nobody will gain from such a market.
Poorly thought out and designed to appeal to people who don't live in
the real world. What next, a restriction on the price of cars sold to
"locals" in areas not well served by public transport, cheap food for
those people not fortunate to have a plot of land?

[Dewi]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 07:33:50 +0100, "Lyn David Thomas"

Post by Lyn David Thomas

Post by Sion

Post by Peter
I think this demonstrates one major problem with the policy - in many
cases it's "locals" that are selling their properties for prices that
other "locals" cannot afford.

I agree. Much the reason for this. It's quite funny when you witness some
individuals turning up to these "housing for locals" rallies with the full
knowledge that they have a history themselves for selling to "any" highest
bidder.

OK then - as there is clearly a problem in these areas with affordable
housing for local people how would you solve the problem?

Social housing (council or association) they pay a % of their combined
income. That's all people livening in the house with income. (Children
too, when working)

They move houses as and when appropriate, no 3 bed houses for couple
whose children have left home, etc...This will free up the houses for
other peoples needs.

When their income gets to a certain level it will make (Should) sense
to go and purchase a house.

That is not the full policy but the bones of it.
Dewi,

(remove spin for email)

[Lyn David Thomas]

Post by Dewi
They move houses as and when appropriate, no 3 bed houses for couple
whose children have left home, etc...This will free up the houses for
other peoples needs.

In theory that isn't a bad idea, but can you imagine how difficult it is
to move people out? And what about the right to buy policy? After so
long they will be entitled to a large discount on the purchase price of
their local authority home. Thus removing property from the social sector
and leaving local authorities with the cost of building new property to
replace the shortage.

Post by Dewi
When their income gets to a certain level it will make (Should) sense
to go and purchase a house.

And if they are unable to afford homes locally because local wages are low
and only people who are moving from more affluent areas (or areas that have
more expensive housing) can afford local property prices - what then?

[Dewi]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:23:41 +0100, "Lyn David Thomas"

Post by Lyn David Thomas

Post by Dewi
They move houses as and when appropriate, no 3 bed houses for couple
whose children have left home, etc...This will free up the houses for
other peoples needs.

In theory that isn't a bad idea, but can you imagine how difficult it is
to move people out? And what about the right to buy policy? After so
long they will be entitled to a large discount on the purchase price of
their local authority home. Thus removing property from the social sector
and leaving local authorities with the cost of building new property to
replace the shortage.

No right to buy.

The normal market is if you want to buy.

Stays as social housing for ever. (Might need to make/change a law)

Post by Lyn David Thomas

Post by Dewi
When their income gets to a certain level it will make (Should) sense
to go and purchase a house.

And if they are unable to afford homes locally because local wages are low
and only people who are moving from more affluent areas (or areas that have
more expensive housing) can afford local property prices - what then?

Cheap rent goes, with cheap jobs. A sort of pay by ability.

Well, you can't have everything. I think it impossible to make life
fair. You can help people, but can do it for them.

A bit simple, but then so are the people who need this sort of help.


Dewi,

(remove spin for email)

[Dewi]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:38:21 +0100, Dewi
<***@spin.wynwilliams.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

That should be,

Post by Dewi
You can help people, but can do it for them.

You can help people, but can't do it for them.


Dewi,

(remove spin for email)