poppet2 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 This six bedroomed house is in the centre of London a very sought after area near the city. Is this just the council practicing a form of social cleansing by not allowing council tenants to live there? The council left this place derelict for almost 30 years. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-most-expensive-council-house-sells-for-296m-8909562.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 This six bedroomed house is in the centre of London a very sought after area near the city. Is this just the council practicing a form of social cleansing by not allowing council tenants to live there? The council left this place derelict for almost 30 years. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-most-expensive-council-house-sells-for-296m-8909562.html "Councillors said the cost of repairing the Georgian building meant that auctioning it off and reinvesting the money into new housing stock made the most economic sense." Isn't it better to use the money to either improve the existing stock or build some more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
despritdan Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 It has probably been bought by a private landlord who will rent it out to a huge family of asylum seekers, charging extortionate rents which will be paid by the council tax payers as housing benefit. He will get his money back ten times over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 It has probably been bought by a private landlord who will rent it out to a huge family of asylum seekers, charging extortionate rents which will be paid by the council tax payers as housing benefit. He will get his money back ten times over. If it's been abandoned for 30 years it's going to take a bit of fettling to be habitable.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 If it's been abandoned for 30 years it's going to take a bit of fettling to be habitable.. So why did they leave it derelict for this long? If you leave any house derelict for thirty years is will deteriorate ten times worse. Materials were far cheaper way back in 1987 to renovate it. Anyway there are squatters in there now. ---------- Post added 29-10-2013 at 10:09 ---------- It has probably been bought by a private landlord who will rent it out to a huge family of asylum seekers, charging extortionate rents which will be paid by the council tax payers as housing benefit. He will get his money back ten times over. And the owner will get a council grant to bring it up to standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 So why did they leave it derelict for this long? If you leave any house derelict for thirty years is will deteriorate ten times worse. Materials were far cheaper way back in 1987 to renovate it. No idea.. you need to ask the council that question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Isn't it better to use the money to either improve the existing stock or build some more? No not really. If you can sell off one property for nearly 3 million that money can build a small estate somewhere else. You'd get like ten new properties for that money. I'm sure that council has some brown-belt land on it's books somewhere it can redevelop into housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 No not really. If you can sell off one property for nearly 3 million that money can build a small estate somewhere else. You'd get like ten new properties for that money. I'm sure that council has some brown-belt land on it's books somewhere it can redevelop into housing. Why "No"? you're agreeing with what I said..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Is this just the council practicing a form of social cleansing by not allowing council tenants to live there? It isn't social cleansing but making best use of resource. When house one family when you could house a dozen families and have cash left over for other services? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Why "No"? you're agreeing with what I said..? I completley mis-read your post *Scrabbles around for a desperately needed morning coffee* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.