Today's most viewed
WALTHAM FOREST: Target set for more new social homes
COUNCILLORS have vowed to tackle the housing crisis in the borough and to provide more affordable housing for taxpayers.
They have acknowledged that the housing needs of Waltham Forest cannot be underestimated and have committed to improving the number of "quality", "affordable" and "well designed" homes to prevent the shortage from worsening.
Cabinet member for communities and housing Cllr Marie Pye put forward a motion at full council inviting councillors to support the target of making 40 per cent of all new housing affordable or social, to be raised to 50 per cent over the next five years.
Cllr Pye told the chamber there are 11,500 people waiting for relocation, including disabled tenants in unsuitable accommodation, and large families crammed into small flats.
She said: "Housing is now top of the agenda. We have to take the lead on delivering housing.
"We need mixed communities were you cannot tell from the front door what they are, whether they are social housing, key workers, or bought themselves.
"We cannot risk the future of our residents in the borough."
Liberal Demotratic Cllr Farooq Qureshi drew on his own family's experience to highlight the issue: "There is a great shortage of housing in Waltham Forest and I should know because my own daughter lives in a small one-bedroom flat with three children. Even councillors cannot ring up to get housing for their family."
Targetting empty properties in the borough was highlighted as a priority, with Cllr Pye announcing that 800 empty homes have been brought back to the council.
Lib Dem and council deputy leader Keith Rayner suggested that greater effort be made to claim some 3,000 empty properties across the borough by issuing compulsory purchase orders and empty dwelling management orders to make use of existing resources.
Conservative Cllr Alan Siggers and Conservative leader Matt Davis opposed the targets of 40 and 50 per cent of affordable housing because, it was argued, that when such targets were set in other London boroughs such as Richmond, it was not reached because developers would not make enough profit.
Cllr Siggers said: "The 40 per cent has failed because people will not build them. People don't get into development for altruistic reasons, they do it to make money."
Cllr Pye's motion with the 40 per cent and 50 per cent targets was voted on and agreed by a majority.
4:29pm Friday 9th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: gary, e17 on 9:07pm Sat 10 May 08
This has always been an issue, the difficulty comes with the election of Boris Johnson as Mayor, his adviser on housing is Simon Milton, fomer leader of Westminster Council and involved with the gerrymandering of Shirley Porter. Remember the homes for votes scandal of the 80's??? Homeless people were pushed out as council homes were sold of to people more likle to vote conservative.
Homeless families were placd in asbesto ridden homes for years, some died as a result.
Drastic action is needed to tke into ownership all those empty properties where owners are doing nothing, with I must add..no compensation. This would force action on them to bring them back into use, or we do it.
Thats not too revolutionary is it?
Also doing Boris' biding will be Nicholas Boles, former Westminster tory and Peter Rogers, former chief executive of Westminster Council, forgive me but do you a connection here ?
This has always been an issue, the difficulty comes with the election of Boris Johnson as Mayor, his adviser on housing is Simon Milton, fomer leader of Westminster Council and involved with the gerrymandering of Shirley Porter. Remember the homes for votes scandal of the 80's??? Homeless people were pushed out as council homes were sold of to people more likle to vote conservative.
Homeless families were placd in asbesto ridden homes for years, some died as a result.
Drastic action is needed to tke into ownership all those empty properties where owners are doing nothing, with I must add..no compensation. This would force action on them to bring them back into use, or we do it.
Thats not too revolutionary is it?
Also doing Boris' biding will be Nicholas Boles, former Westminster tory and Peter Rogers, former chief executive of Westminster Council, forgive me but do you a connection here ?
Posted by: technomist, walthamstow on 8:47am Mon 12 May 08
Taking over properties without paying for them is called theft Gary. I suspect we have enough of that round here already.
I am interested in the vocabulary used in this article. Much of it seems like its been designed to fudge the reality. How about this concept of housing for 'taxpayers'. That means most of us doesn't it? Or do they mean that people who don't earn enough to pay taxes can't be housed. Or are they just saying that to make people think it must be a Good Thing? Spinning it in other words.
Also, they talk about 'affordable' housing, but what exactly is an 'unaffordable' home? Does the council expect half the houses being built to be [italic]unaffordable[/italic] ? I don't suppose any developer is going to be so stupid as to build houses he can't sell because no-one can afford it. So who is it they expect to buy?
And why is a "quality" home catagorised differently from a "well-designed" home. I have to be honest, as I read this article, lots of the vocabulary in it looks like gobbledegook to me.
Maybe all will be clearer when they start speaking honestly.
Taking over properties without paying for them is called theft Gary. I suspect we have enough of that round here already.
I am interested in the vocabulary used in this article. Much of it seems like its been designed to fudge the reality. How about this concept of housing for 'taxpayers'. That means most of us doesn't it? Or do they mean that people who don't earn enough to pay taxes can't be housed. Or are they just saying that to make people think it must be a Good Thing? Spinning it in other words.
Also, they talk about 'affordable' housing, but what exactly is an 'unaffordable' home? Does the council expect half the houses being built to be
unaffordable ? I don't suppose any developer is going to be so stupid as to build houses he can't sell because no-one can afford it. So who is it they expect to buy?
And why is a "quality" home catagorised differently from a "well-designed" home. I have to be honest, as I read this article, lots of the vocabulary in it looks like gobbledegook to me.
Maybe all will be clearer when they start speaking honestly.
Posted by: Gary, e17 on 10:40am Mon 12 May 08
Owners will be, or have been given opportunities to bring properties back into use. Often with public subsidy, all I say is it is about time it stopped. Affordable housing is an outdated terms these days. Housing of whatever type should reduce prices as more becomes available.
I fear with the new gang in charge it will get worse.
Owners will be, or have been given opportunities to bring properties back into use. Often with public subsidy, all I say is it is about time it stopped. Affordable housing is an outdated terms these days. Housing of whatever type should reduce prices as more becomes available.
I fear with the new gang in charge it will get worse.
Posted by: Mr Khalid, walthamstow on 4:08pm Mon 12 May 08
must makeded just the hoses for the poors parsons no the expensed flat for the single and like one A406 wateroose
must makeded just the hoses for the poors parsons no the expensed flat for the single and like one A406 wateroose
Posted by: Paul Delaney, Hainault on 3:43pm Tue 13 May 08
Yet more homes in Waltham Forest to house illegal immigrants.
Yet more homes in Waltham Forest to house illegal immigrants.
Posted by: Gary, e17 on 4:51pm Tue 13 May 08
I don't think illegals get housed, they tend not to ask for housing....
I don't think illegals get housed, they tend not to ask for housing....
Posted by: mung, walthamstow on 3:08pm Wed 14 May 08
the headline to this story is misleading. The target is NOT for 'social' homes but for 'social' OR 'affordable' homes. Unless there is a specific separate target for social rented housing, most of the so-called affordable housing will NOT be proper social housing, but will be overpriced shared ownership. Even then, i doubt the council will meet these targets.
This is the way it has been going for a while and the only way it will change is if we had a council who was able to negotiate decent deals with developers on our behalf, and stand up to central and regional government.
Sadly, that's not what our council tends to do...
the headline to this story is misleading. The target is NOT for 'social' homes but for 'social' OR 'affordable' homes. Unless there is a specific separate target for social rented housing, most of the so-called affordable housing will NOT be proper social housing, but will be overpriced shared ownership. Even then, i doubt the council will meet these targets.
This is the way it has been going for a while and the only way it will change is if we had a council who was able to negotiate decent deals with developers on our behalf, and stand up to central and regional government.
Sadly, that's not what our council tends to do...
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
