Search Results for: "Housing waiting list" ...

Progress in boosting York cheaper homes initiative

The Council has recently agreed to purchase several vacant homes in the City. It is part of a plan, tabled several years ago, by the LibDems which will see property bought on the open market to ease the housing crisis.

Grange Lane

The funding to purchase empty homes will mainly come from the surplus accumulated over many years on the Council housing account.

The properties will be available on a part rent/part mortgage basis for lower paid local workers.

Typically schemes like this allow couples to get on the housing ladder and gradually move on to own the whole of the property.

Homes purchased recently include ones in Foxwood Lane, Kingsway West, Troutbeck, Teal Drive and Grange Lane

Several of the properties are former Council houses which were sold under “right to buy” legislation. They are a mixture of 2 and 3 bedroomed properties.

Initially the homes are likely to be offered to those on the housing waiting list and existing tenants.

The initiative will reduce pressure to build on greenfield sites.

An independent appraised of shared ownership can be found by clicking here

York Council set to punish “good tenants”?

The York Council is aiming to quit the North Yorkshire Home Choice service (NTHC). The scheme provides a boundary free geographical area in North Yorkshire for which prospective social housing tenants can register their interest. It allows, for example, Selby residents to register an interest in moving to York, while York applicants can register to move to Scarborough.

Most respondents to a council survey disagreed with the York plan to leave the organisation, although most did agree with a range of changes which would tighten up the how social housing allocations are made.

These include plans to crack down on fraudulent applications and ways to reduce the period during which bids for housing must be lodged.

The full new York allocations policy can be found by clicking here

Hidden in the proposed changes is a plan to scrap the “Good Tenants” system which allows existing tenants, with a good rent payment and behaviour record, to participate in the bid process for vacant properties in other parts of the City.

It was introduced about 15 years ago to help those tenants who, through no fault of their own, ended up being housed in a neighbourhood remote for their job, family or friends.

This could happen when new tenants were given no choice of location when allocations were made.

In some cases, neighbour problems prompted requests for transfers.They often found it impossible to agree anl exchange, particularly if they lived in a street or block with a poor reputation.

When considering the “good tenant” scheme several councillors, at the time, argued that a mis-allocation should not be a “life sentence”. Some tenants found it impossible to find a mutual exchange partner and “management transfers” were hard to get.

Including transfer requests in the letting process does not reduce the number of vacancies available. It may add a few days into the cycle as the first tenant moves to their new home. Their old tenancy though becomes immediately available for letting.

The only real argument in favour of the restriction offered by officials is administrative convenience.

Peoples well being should have a higher priority.

Interestingly this proposal was not included in the survey of opinion that the Council undertook with local tenant representative organisations.

Separately, the Council has said in response to a Freedom of information request that it cannot provide figures giving the number of applicants on the housing waiting list divided between those applying because of overcrowding and those existing tenants who are seeking to downsize.

They say only that the numbers on the waiting list by band currently are:

Bronze 408
Silver 866
Gold 206
Total 1480

Historical trend information is also not available.

We are slightly sceptical about the response.

If the authority does not have an accurate picture of the size of homes which are in greatest demand, then it can hardly justify spending tens of millions of pounds on its new Council house building programme.

Secret land deal at “Lowfields Green”

The Council has revealed that it has done a deal to sell 0.74 acres of land to Yorspace at the Lowfield school site.

The land is located next to Tudor Road and is expected to accommodate a high-density development of 19 houses and flats. The communal living style model involves people purchasing shares in a “Mutual Home Ownership Society”.

A report, made public only after a decision had been taken says, “It is a high-density development, to reflect its sustainable objectives, and will also include a community building which can be used for events, as well as some shared outdoor communal areas and growing spaces. As part of the groups green objectives, they are aiming for around 1-1.5 parking spaces per house. The site will be constructed using a variety of environmentally friendly materials and processes, possibly including straw bale and solar”.

The report also says, “As part of the agreement they may also take on the management of the growing spaces and some green areas of the Lowfield site and will run them for the wider community’s benefit”.

The council is refusing to say how much the land will be sold for nor will it say what the market value of the land is.

It is clear that a substantial discount has been negotiated.

It appears that the Council is not stipulating that the plots should be reserved for use by local people with a proven need for cheap accommodation (e.g. on the housing waiting list &/or key workers).

Yorspace plans

The Council has already changed its plans for the relocation of the football team which currently uses the Lowfields playing field.

In December, they were supposed to be relocated to Tadcaster Road. Last month the Council said they were considering fencing off Chesneys Field to accommodate them.

That announcement produced a barrage of opposition from the current users of Chesneys Field.

Residents opposed fencing the public open space by a ratio of 3:1 in a recent door to door survey.

The decision to sell off the land to Yorspace was taken last week by the Councils Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care (Jon Stonehouse), at a private, behind closed doors, meeting.

There was no consultation with affected residents before the meeting was held.

Oliver House redevelopment set for “go ahead”

Officials are recommending that planning permission by granted for the redevelopment of the Oliver House site.

Mccarthy and Stone Bishophill Mccarthy and Stone Bishophill2 Mccarthy and Stone Bishophill3 Mccarthy and Stone Bishophill4

The former elderly person’s home was sold by the Council to specialist developer McCarthy and Stone a year ago. The expectation was that apartments – aimed at older people – would be provided on the well located site.

As well as the £3.2 million capital receipt, the Council is now set receive over £500,000 to spend on providing “off-site” social housing units.

The main demand on the housing waiting list is for smaller properties which, when vacated, will free up family accommodation. The Council may need to act quickly to make use of the receipt or any vacated Council houses may have to be sold on the open market under new central government regulations.

The new Bishophill development will provide 34 homes with associated communal space and car parking.

The Council was heavily criticised for leaving Oliver House unused for over 2 years. Eventually it was sold by tender but it could still be over 18 months before the first homes there are occupied.

Harewood Whin

At a meeting on 15^th September the Council is set to remove the requirement to provide a section of cycle path outside the new waste transfer station on Wetherby Road near Rufforth. The proposed road side path has been superseded by an alternative off road link which opened last year.

York Central residents survey.

click to complete

Only two weeks left to give your views.

The York Council is now nearly halfway through its “consultation” on the future of the York Central site.

Sad to say, but the information provided to aid residents in making their choices is pretty hopeless. Most obvious omissions are any financial or value for money metrics.

Basically a survey which offers residents anything they want, but without explaining either costs or sources of funding, is bound to lack credibility. Local developers have already questioned he sanity of a project that depends on speculative office development to repay investment in infrastructure.

Similarly a casual suggestion that through traffic should be removed from Leeman Road is bound to prompt a question about the impact on the rest of the highway network?

Key background facts, like the number of unemployed in the City and the number on the housing waiting list, are not provided, yet respondents are asked to take a stab at the number of new jobs and homes that they think should be provided on the site.

Doubly so, given the sensitivities that still linger on from the Lendal Bridge closure fiasco.

The Council really needs to debate how big they see the City becoming over the next few decades?

Answer that question first and the contribution that the York Central site (which is ideally located) can make, will become more obvious.

Syrian Refugees and York

I’ve had quite a lot of feedback on the article which appeared on Saturday (and which was later partly reproduced by The Press).

Most of the feedback has been positive with one resident offering to accommodate a refugee in her spare room! We are fortunate to live in a free society where we are able to choose how we use our homes.

Several major church and educational establishments have said that they support the City accepting, accommodating and supporting a quota of Syrian refugees

Some reaction has been less positive and ill informed. So for the record:

The current housing waiting list in York is 1546
Each year around 700 vacancies occur in Council or Housing Association properties and are let to those registered on the waiting list.

A campaign is growing that the City should do its bit to ease the humanitarian crisis caused by the conflict in Syria.

It is hoped that politicians (of all parties), churches, schools, Universities, business leaders, voluntary groups and individuals will sign a declaration urging the government to accept a quota of refugees and indicating that the City of York would be prepared to find accommodation for its share of those allowed into the country.

click to sign

Only 107 new affordable homes completed in York last year

The York Council continues to perform poorly in the provision of affordable homes in York.

It has steadfastly refused to buy on the open market despite having a £15 million balance on its housing account.

In total, 345 additional homes were provided in the City during 2013/14. During the first 6 months of 2014/15, 235 homes were provided.

click to enlarge

York Council homes sold under “right to buy”? (New Council homes completed)

2010/11 = 10 (0)
2011/12 = 6 (0)
2012/13 = 24 (19)
2013/14 = 53 (0)
2014/15 (up to 1/12/14) = 39 (18)

Number on housing waiting list.

2010/11 = 3294
2011/12 = 3972
2012/13 = 4692
2013/14 = 2306 (eligibility change)
As at 20/01/15 = 1462

Over 2000 planning applications for housing have been approved during the last 18 months, with the vast majority for “brownfield” (previously developed) land

Liberal Democrat housing policy can be read here

Public services in York getting worse this year – official

Little attention has been given to a report to tomorrows Cabinet meeting which shows a marked decline in the quality of some public services in York

Graffiti taking longer to remove

It is taking the Council between 2 and 3 days to clean graffiti now – almost double the time taken two years ago

The number of York residents on the housing waiting list has increase from 1344 to 1439 over recent months It is still low compared to historical levels (because many applicants were struck off the list last year by the Council)

Only 62% of tenants are satisfied now with the Council as a landlord. To a degree this reflects the lack of investment in the Council estates across the City (a LibDem regeneration plan was voted down last week by the Labour/Green coalition)

Customer satisfaction with the quality of streets and public places has slipped below 50% as has satisfaction with green spaces.

Only 48% think that the Council is tackling anti social behaviour well.

Fewer residents (12%) are now “volunteering”

The number of people aged over 65 admitted to residential and nursing care homes had risen to 767 (per 100k population) by the end of last year. Numbers are increasing again this year.

By December 27 residents were victims of delayed discharges from hospital. Of these 15 were down to York Council care failings.

Waste going to landfill increasing

The Council is failing its waste management targets. Consequently taxpayers will foot an increased £3.7million landfill tax bill.

Stage carriage bus use in the City is stable. The Council refuses to publish monthly figures indicating the number of buses running on time (was 84% last year according to DoT figures)

Local Plan meeting agenda published

The Council has published a further report on the number of new homes that it believes should be built in the City over the next 20 years.

The report fails completely to offer any possibility of reaching a consensus, driven, as it is, by the now discredited “Big City” strategy devised by the last Labour administration.

Council officials need to get back to basics. History is fact and an average of around 600 additional homes is what has been produced in the City over the last few decades.

Births, deaths and house building click to enlarge

In the last two years the housing waiting list in the City has fallen from a peak of 4692 to 1344. That is the backlog in demand that needs to be accommodated and, with nearly 5000 outstanding planning permissions available in the city, volume requirements (but not necessary affordability) can be addressed.

Natural population growth (births minus deaths) have averaged around 1000 a year producing an internal demand for less than 500 additional homes each year.

As was explained a coupe of days ago, there are a vast range of opinions on what may happen over the next two decades.

It is however highly unlikely that we will see high levels of sustained economic growth over the longer term. There will be peaks and troughs

Hence a figure of between 600 and 650 additional homes per year – on average – is a reasonable and justifiable aspiration.

The sooner York Council officials recognise this and get on with planning on that basis the sooner York’s Local Plan can achieve widespread support.

« Previous
1
…
3
4
5
6
7
…
9
Next »