The Borough Council are developing (or hoping to develop, depending on planning permission being granted) four new affordable housing sites around the town.

http://www.shrewsbury.gov.uk/public/yourco...ing/default.htm

Two are greenfield and two are brownfield. Three are in North Shrewsbury (surprise, surprise) and one is in Bayston Hill.

The question I have to ask is, the word affordable I might have 400,000 pounds in my pocket and to me that makes a 400,000 pound house affordable.

What I want is Council houseing back!! For two long we have left it with houseing associations who have morgaged every property at least 3 times and give themselfs big wage increases.

I dont care if it is on green feild sites as long a it is rented at affordable price!!

Agreed! - How exactly do they define 'affordable housing'?

They just don't want to use the word 'cheap'. I don't see why the council should be in the business of housebuilding any more than baking bread or making shoes though, their job should be to make available enough sites for the private sector to build new homes on.

An interesting point, all housing should be well built and well designed the latter being an aspect sorely misused/misunderstood in this country.

When you examine who needs affordable housing then perhaps affordable renting used to be a solution. It is invariably low income families that need cheaper homes but by the same token need safe roads and play areas. For a lot of the population income isn't necessarily a really big issue until they start a family.

Developers are not made to put good design into their remit but more importance is given to fake period tat which will please the councillors.

My mother lives in a council house in Wellington and the housing ass.there spends a lot more on their housing stock than here in Sbury.they have only just taken the old metal window out in Ditherington,while back in Wellington my mother has had a new fitted kitchen new central heating system new bathroom suite, upvc windows and doors, walls and roof insulated,and if any thing goes wrong they come round the same day if possible.Telford are going it alone and seem to be all the better for it,just round the corner from my mothers house there are several metal type houses like those in monkmoor these have been cladded and changed beyond recognition,does anyone here live in a metal style house in Shrewsbury?or any council house,i would like hear what improvements have been done to your house over the last two years.

It depends where you live. There isn't a standard definition of affordable housing so the local council set their own.

In Shrewsbury, they use an average income of £21,800 and reckon that by getting a 95% mortgage a two bedroom house is affordable if it costs up to £69,000. At this level, all you can buy is a shared ownership property. You have a mortgage for, say, a 50% share in the property and pay rent to the landlord on the other half.

If you are just renting a two bed property, they reckon it will be affordable if the rent is up to £103 per week.

Why shouldn't local councils build homes? They are democratically elected bodies after all.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but are you saying that the role of local councils is to spend council tax payers' money on providing greater profit opportunities to housebuilders?

Well, if they should build houses why not own car factories or shoe shops?

I'm not saying they should pay council taxpayers money to anybody, they should be making available sufficient sites for development so that prices don't rocket and ensuring that developments are well designed and suitable for local needs, accompanied by relevant infrastructure and environmental improvements.

If the housebuilders then make a profit, all the better, don't forget all our pensions are invested in businesses, including housebuilders.

We I have heard it all now. All I see is builders making smaller and smaller propertys in Shrewsbury most are called (Flats).

No we should not be asking for the Council to sell shoes or anything small what I am talking about is rentable property

What I want is for the council to start rented houseing again because it is what is needed in this town a roof over peoples head.

Over 3,000 people in this town are living on floors or in substandard private rents. I dont know of one person who does not know sombody who needs housing in this town.

We need to wake up to the problem!! :(

This country needs many more houses built but whenever plans come forward to address this problem the media (see yesterday's Shropshire Star) start screaming and condem housebuilding plans as "concreting over our green countryside" etc.

Either we build more houses for our growing and changing population, or we end up with more homeless, more overcrowding, more families living in substandard housing, etc.

We need to build more houses full stop.

We need to build innovative housing that are built more sustainably. Many pre- fabricated houses in the past were not well insulated but methods of construction like everything else have moved on, as have other countries in Europe when it comes to housing, except us!

Are we saying to developers at long last, we want what we want and not what you want ie: bigger bigger profits but poorly thought out homes? Maybe all those For Sale signs at Julian Friars are saying just that!

I feel sad that the council and Severnside continue to specify UVPC windows when they are so damaging to the environment to produce and dispose of. They are banned abroad in parts of Europe for that very reason.

Meanwhile any effort made to allieviate problems such as housing in this country is undermined by the growing anarchy we face in many areas:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/6246065.stm

Why do we even bother?

Perhaps this is an example P. Salopian where more education about design and the built environment should be included in the school curriculum. (Councillors could attend too but be put in the Dunces corner IMHO!!!)

Was there any attempt to involve the community these houses are being built in other than imposing the site to be delegated for 'affordable houses' a stigma in itself implying houses that will be cheap and nasty, when locals, I believe, felt it was ground belonging to the community.
Was the development seen as giving something back to the residents around it. Did they feel they had a say in the style, any environmental gains that could be incorporated.
Could this have been a community 'self build' project' for those applying from the waiting list.
I know this might sound like I am excusing vandalism, I certainly do not but the way this has been handled with a pompous ceremony and the mayor cutting the first sod looks like something imposed and not the start of a hopefully positive regeneration of this side of the town.
What do you think?

Do you really think any of that would stop hooligans and vandals breaking into building sites and damaging things? They don't give a toss about anything.

As for things being imposed, I don't think that is the case.

Isn't there a shortage of affordable/social housing in town? The answer of course is yes. And people living in the Ditherington area are probably the most needy when it comes to needing new affordable/social housing. I'm sure many in that area are just as annoyed as I am with this vandalism and the costs and delays caused by it, because in the end this new housing being built there (and it's not a huge site) will benefit the needy the most.

Growing anarchy just about sums up the way this country is heading.

Actually it's anarchy and apathy - a dangerous mix I would suggest.

But according to 'Dave' Cameron, all they really need is nice big hug.
To be fair though, not all those who fit the chav description are yobs -In fact, it's probably just a small minority.

Reward the good and punish the bad - Sounds a fair, common sense approach,eh? So why do the 'powers that be' often do the reverse?

Hi

I live in a severnside house and "improvements" have been made with new front and back doors with 3 keys provided to cover both doors. I required extra keys for family, I vist the key-cutters in town only to be told that they could not makes copies and that I had to contact severnside housing to obtain additional keys.

The downside of this is that severnside charge an additional £9.34 per key and I could only obtain the additional keys I required by paying £18.68 and signing a declaration that I had to hand in the keys if I gave up the tenancy any time in the future.

This does not seem too much of an issue, however when asking about refund on the return of keys I was told that they do not have the facilities to offer refunds so I asked if the next tenant would be charged for additional keys and they seemed reluctant to answer, which to me says a big yes.

In my view this is an obvious money making scheme because if they can accept and process payments for the keys then they can process and issue refunds after all it is all documented and signed for when you make the payment so they know who has additional keys and how much was paid.

It is a good thing that keys are signed out but is unfair to people who have carers etc as it represents additional costs that many can ill-afford.

http://www.shropshirestar.co.uk/2007/01/va...curity-patrols/

I'm sorry, do we not have a police force? Evidently not.

There's some history to the building site. From what I have read, there was a community centre here but that was demolished by the council in the early 1990s as it was considered unsafe. Since then, the site has been used by the local kids as a football pitch, playground etc. It was claimed that the site had been donated to the local community many years ago but there was no proof of this. I read that the council had successfully claimed ownership of the land as they had maintained it over a number of years by mowing the grass. There is no excuse for vandalism but this may be yet another case where the council has angered residents by starting projects without getting the support of the local community first.