Feltwell
Member
- Messages
- 6,377
- Location
- Shropshire, England
Did anyone else watch this last night (2nd episode is on tonight)?
George Clarke presenting a rally against the needless waste of empty properties in the UK. Whilst I doubt very much that we'll approve of the renovation methods used (I expect to see UPVC, cement and injected DPC's a-plenty) I wholeheartedly support the sentiments behind what he says. To see perfectly good houses demolished when they can be brought back into use as good quality housing for a fraction of the cost and enviromental impact of building new ones is nothing short of criminal.
Official C4 website here:-
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-british-property-scandal/articles/home/
And in my view a deeply, deeply flawed and very lazy review from the Torygraph here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...rty-Scandal-episode-one-Channel-4-review.html
The writer seems to think that George is on some left wing crusade against the Thatcherite right-to-buy policy. I didn't pick up on that at all from this first programme - whilst there was plenty of criticism of both local and national housing policy, it was mostly about the fact that potentially good homes are being left empty and the fact that keeping them secure was costing a substantial amount of money and blighting entire neighbourhoods. I didn't pick up on criticism being aimed at any one political party. Let's face it, I'd be amazed if Pathfinder wasn't to blame for a fair chunk of what we saw, which was after all a Labour policy.
Since when? He mentioned his upbringing very briefly but I don't remember him talking "fondly" about it. He seemed to be talking as much about the problems of private landlords as local authorities and housing associations. Indeed, a good section of the programme was devoted to one specific example of where a privately owned home could not be brought back into use without some kind of financial assistance to the property owner.
In that particular case the programme makers sponsored the funding of the renovation of the property in question, the property remaining in the hands of a private owner on the condition that it was then rented long-term to a family in need of housing, a portion of that rental then repaying the low-cost loan raised to cover the renovation costs. The campaign was to make such a scheme into a government-sponsored one.
I really couldn't see any negatives to this:-
- The owner, who in this case was stuck with a negative equity property he couldn't sell, gets the house renovated and has some income to offset against the mortgage payments
- The owner gets to retain the property which should serve as a long term investment for him, or at least get to the point where it is not in negative equity
- The family who rented it got a clean, warm and secure home, which they were in desperate need of
- That house will be available to low-income families (who would otherwise be in social housing if it was available or sub-standard private housing) for a set period at a much lower cost to the public sector than building a new house
- An empty Victorian house is saved from inevitable decay - although I admit it was renovated to a higher standard than was strictly necessary.
George Clarke presenting a rally against the needless waste of empty properties in the UK. Whilst I doubt very much that we'll approve of the renovation methods used (I expect to see UPVC, cement and injected DPC's a-plenty) I wholeheartedly support the sentiments behind what he says. To see perfectly good houses demolished when they can be brought back into use as good quality housing for a fraction of the cost and enviromental impact of building new ones is nothing short of criminal.
Official C4 website here:-
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-british-property-scandal/articles/home/
And in my view a deeply, deeply flawed and very lazy review from the Torygraph here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...rty-Scandal-episode-one-Channel-4-review.html
The writer seems to think that George is on some left wing crusade against the Thatcherite right-to-buy policy. I didn't pick up on that at all from this first programme - whilst there was plenty of criticism of both local and national housing policy, it was mostly about the fact that potentially good homes are being left empty and the fact that keeping them secure was costing a substantial amount of money and blighting entire neighbourhoods. I didn't pick up on criticism being aimed at any one political party. Let's face it, I'd be amazed if Pathfinder wasn't to blame for a fair chunk of what we saw, which was after all a Labour policy.
Since when? He mentioned his upbringing very briefly but I don't remember him talking "fondly" about it. He seemed to be talking as much about the problems of private landlords as local authorities and housing associations. Indeed, a good section of the programme was devoted to one specific example of where a privately owned home could not be brought back into use without some kind of financial assistance to the property owner.
In that particular case the programme makers sponsored the funding of the renovation of the property in question, the property remaining in the hands of a private owner on the condition that it was then rented long-term to a family in need of housing, a portion of that rental then repaying the low-cost loan raised to cover the renovation costs. The campaign was to make such a scheme into a government-sponsored one.
I really couldn't see any negatives to this:-
- The owner, who in this case was stuck with a negative equity property he couldn't sell, gets the house renovated and has some income to offset against the mortgage payments
- The owner gets to retain the property which should serve as a long term investment for him, or at least get to the point where it is not in negative equity
- The family who rented it got a clean, warm and secure home, which they were in desperate need of
- That house will be available to low-income families (who would otherwise be in social housing if it was available or sub-standard private housing) for a set period at a much lower cost to the public sector than building a new house
- An empty Victorian house is saved from inevitable decay - although I admit it was renovated to a higher standard than was strictly necessary.