Taunton Deane council tax rising 5p a week - and £50,000 to counter flooding

This is The West Country: Taunton Deane Council's Deane House HQ. Taunton Deane Council's Deane House HQ.

PEOPLE in the Taunton and Wellington areas could have to pay more council tax to help fund work to prevent a repeat of the Somerset Levels flooding.

Taunton Deane Council, which is responsible for services such as planning, environmental health and rubbish collection, is increasing its council tax demand for the year from April by 2% - raising its share of Band D average bills by £2.70 (about 5p a week) to £137.89, roughly a tenth of overall bills.

Receiving £800,000 less from the Government than last year, the authority has had to balance the books through cutbacks, increased charges and job losses.

Public loos are to be closed, council house rents will rise and play equipment in parks will undergo fewer health and safety checks.

But the council will give £50,000 – about half of its increased council tax income - towards dredging the Rivers Tone and Parrett in a bid to prevent flooding similar to this year and last on the Levels.

Council leader Cllr John Williams (Conservative) said: “The floods we’re experiencing this year are devastating for so many who live and work on the Levels and Moors – it’s the second time in 18 months people have suffered extreme flooding.

“We need to work with other partners to try to find a long-term solution to the extreme events we’re experiencing now.”

Mr Williams said savings were needed as by next year the council will have seen its Government grant cut by £3.46million to £4.3million over five years.

He said: “We’ve come up with a balanced budget in the face of quite unprecedented reductions in our Government grant.

“We’ve increased the council tax by 2% to make sure we can protect our services for our community through the year to come.

“This year we’ve protected most of the frontline services and we’re responding to a catastrophic event down on the Moors.

“Most of the reductions are in administration.

“We have many challenges and uncertainties ahead, but there are opportunities for growth and we have a budget that’s sustainable into the future and protects frontline services.”

Opposition leader Cllr Jefferson Horsley (LibDem) said he supported the council tax increase and the cash towards dredging the Levels.

The Deane’s announcement comes after Somerset County Council, which is responsible for education, highways and social services, froze its council tax demand, meaning its share of Band D bills will remain at £1,027.

The police, fire and rescue service and parish or town council demands will be added to the overall bill.

*A new homes bonus of £1.9million will go on growth and transformation projects such as the Firepool development, affordable housing, employment land, improving Taunton town centre and employment land for hi-tech industry and warehouses at Bathpool.

A partnership with West Somerset Council to share management and services has helped cut costs, with further savings proposed.

Increased council house rents will help ensure quality homes and allow the council to invest in new houses.

Station Road swimming pool is currently undergoing renovation work, while a new pool is planned at Blackbrook.

CUTS/SAVINGS INCLUDE.

Council house rents are going up 6.23%, taking the average up by £4.81 to £82.06.

Off-street parking through reduced costs and contract changes: £97,000.

Garden waste extra income from increased demand and charges: £70,000.

Legal and democratic services from scrapping Mayor’s leased car, axing Sergeant at Mace role and parish liaison office post: £53,300.

Planning and development through growth in fee income and increased fees: £100,000.

Closure of 10 public loos, £115,300.

Play equipment inspected monthly instead of weekly, £24,000.

Reduced in-house costs for revenues and benefits services, £134,000.

Nine vacant posts not filled and three staff made redundant.

POSSIBLE CUTS/SAVINGS IN FUTURE YEARS.

Increased car parking charges: £190,000.

Strategic review of leisure services: £103,000.

Service changes to waste and recycling: £100,000.

Reduction in unplanned/responsive grounds maintenance works: £29,700.

Reduction in CCTV monitoring at lowest risk sites, £14,000.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:33pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Useacarpark.com says...

I thought that all tax payers would take the hit for those few that choose to live on flood plains. Perhaps the increase should be passed to those that live in the areas affected? In the same way that insurance premiums are increased exclusively to those in high risk areas
I thought that all tax payers would take the hit for those few that choose to live on flood plains. Perhaps the increase should be passed to those that live in the areas affected? In the same way that insurance premiums are increased exclusively to those in high risk areas Useacarpark.com

12:53pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Slow down! says...

Oh that’s fair1

Having been raised a Somerset lad I would never live on the Somerset levels no matter how much you paid me, as I know it floods, always has and always will.

The people that have chosen to live their should imo foot the bill or dig the dykes themselves, not me or anyone else who bothered to look up the areas at risk from flooding when choosing where to live.
Oh that’s fair1 Having been raised a Somerset lad I would never live on the Somerset levels no matter how much you paid me, as I know it floods, always has and always will. The people that have chosen to live their should imo foot the bill or dig the dykes themselves, not me or anyone else who bothered to look up the areas at risk from flooding when choosing where to live. Slow down!

1:08pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Mi_Coc says...

Rising council rents why hasnt this been done earlier.

Privates are being pushed up be a conbination of lack of properties in certain areas and greedy landlords.

Example 4 bed semi just gone on a hardys, bath pool should be £895-995 tops and thats what connells advised me landlord has seen shortage of 4 beds in taunton and told agent £1200 a month.

TDBC will pay housing benefit up £133per week for a 3 bed house when which is £576 which just isnt possible privately you are lucky to find anything for £765-£700.

They need to means test social housing weed out the people who no longer need it.
Rising council rents why hasnt this been done earlier. Privates are being pushed up be a conbination of lack of properties in certain areas and greedy landlords. Example 4 bed semi just gone on a hardys, bath pool should be £895-995 tops and thats what connells advised me landlord has seen shortage of 4 beds in taunton and told agent £1200 a month. TDBC will pay housing benefit up £133per week for a 3 bed house when which is £576 which just isnt possible privately you are lucky to find anything for £765-£700. They need to means test social housing weed out the people who no longer need it. Mi_Coc

10:13pm Wed 29 Jan 14

TauntonBloke29 says...

I don't mind paying 20p a month towards this. It is insignificant in the bigger scheme of things. Hats off to the Council for trying to be transparent in their decision making. This kind of open government gets people interested and more informed on the bigger picture and also the various trade-offs required to manage a shrinking budget.
I don't mind paying 20p a month towards this. It is insignificant in the bigger scheme of things. Hats off to the Council for trying to be transparent in their decision making. This kind of open government gets people interested and more informed on the bigger picture and also the various trade-offs required to manage a shrinking budget. TauntonBloke29

9:55am Thu 30 Jan 14

Gem64 says...

Where I feel the up most sympathy for those living in the flooded parts I Somerset, I would be VERy unhappy to contribute towards sorting this out, give it few hundred years and the whole area will be under water, sadly we cannot fight Mother Nature. When you choose to locate in an area that is historically prone to flooding then please do not expect those of us with more sense to pick up your costs. I would happily pay an additionasl 20p a month towards supporting Social Care provision which is currently being cut to within an inch of its life.
Where I feel the up most sympathy for those living in the flooded parts I Somerset, I would be VERy unhappy to contribute towards sorting this out, give it few hundred years and the whole area will be under water, sadly we cannot fight Mother Nature. When you choose to locate in an area that is historically prone to flooding then please do not expect those of us with more sense to pick up your costs. I would happily pay an additionasl 20p a month towards supporting Social Care provision which is currently being cut to within an inch of its life. Gem64

10:39am Fri 31 Jan 14

feeby12007 says...

Is dredging the answer or is it because of the unprecedented amount of rain we have all had over the last two months? Given that the somerset levels are flat and have had all this rain, it could be suggested that what has happened is of no surprise. Will council tax payers be expected to pay 'a little extra' for all similar problems in the future on top of the amount they already pay for substandard services? The article above seems to be testing the water (no pun intended) to see what the reaction is to raising council tax, whether it is for flooding or not , it is still being raised. This suggestion by Taunton Deane is not the way forward.
Is dredging the answer or is it because of the unprecedented amount of rain we have all had over the last two months? Given that the somerset levels are flat and have had all this rain, it could be suggested that what has happened is of no surprise. Will council tax payers be expected to pay 'a little extra' for all similar problems in the future on top of the amount they already pay for substandard services? The article above seems to be testing the water (no pun intended) to see what the reaction is to raising council tax, whether it is for flooding or not , it is still being raised. This suggestion by Taunton Deane is not the way forward. feeby12007

3:06pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Somerset:SocialistParty says...

A member of the Somerset branch of the Socialist Party writes:

Somerset residents need fully-funded environmental planning

Residents in Somerset still find their homes underwater four weeks after the initial floods. Villages on the Somerset Levels have been most affected, and while communities expect some flooding in these areas, the affect of government cuts and climate change have meant these "once in a hundred years events" are happening every year.

This week Owen Patterson, the Tory environment secretary, visited Somerset to witness the damage himself. He left without speaking to any residents and has also made misleading statements, saying that the Coalition has spent more money on flood prevention than the previous Labour government. This is untrue.

One reason why this year's flooding has been so severe is because the river Parrett, where the flood water is supposed to drain into, has not been dredged. This is obviously due to the huge cuts to the Environment Agency - reportedly up to 40%. What makes this worse is that these dangers were already highlighted in a previous flooding plan written last year. The Con-Dem coalition has ignored this, and the wider concern about flooding, in favour of their austerity agenda. This is madness when put in the context of climate change.

Raising council tax bills to 'compensate' for central government cuts and continued underfunding is something that socialists oppose.

Somerset residents don't need vacuous statements from visiting ministers or Princes. We need fully-funded environmental planning, which can try to mitigate the problems of climate change, not exacerbate them. However, all the three main parties support cuts; to the Environment Agency as well as the NHS, education and councils. We need a new party that not only provides funding for environmental planning, but also uses a socialist plan of production to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions and pollution in order to reduce climate change.

For more information, or to join the Socialist Party, visit: www.socialistparty.o
rg.uk
A member of the Somerset branch of the Socialist Party writes: Somerset residents need fully-funded environmental planning Residents in Somerset still find their homes underwater four weeks after the initial floods. Villages on the Somerset Levels have been most affected, and while communities expect some flooding in these areas, the affect of government cuts and climate change have meant these "once in a hundred years events" are happening every year. This week Owen Patterson, the Tory environment secretary, visited Somerset to witness the damage himself. He left without speaking to any residents and has also made misleading statements, saying that the Coalition has spent more money on flood prevention than the previous Labour government. This is untrue. One reason why this year's flooding has been so severe is because the river Parrett, where the flood water is supposed to drain into, has not been dredged. This is obviously due to the huge cuts to the Environment Agency - reportedly up to 40%. What makes this worse is that these dangers were already highlighted in a previous flooding plan written last year. The Con-Dem coalition has ignored this, and the wider concern about flooding, in favour of their austerity agenda. This is madness when put in the context of climate change. Raising council tax bills to 'compensate' for central government cuts and continued underfunding is something that socialists oppose. Somerset residents don't need vacuous statements from visiting ministers or Princes. We need fully-funded environmental planning, which can try to mitigate the problems of climate change, not exacerbate them. However, all the three main parties support cuts; to the Environment Agency as well as the NHS, education and councils. We need a new party that not only provides funding for environmental planning, but also uses a socialist plan of production to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions and pollution in order to reduce climate change. For more information, or to join the Socialist Party, visit: www.socialistparty.o rg.uk Somerset:SocialistParty

3:25pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Little_Owly says...

Mi_Coc wrote:
Rising council rents why hasnt this been done earlier.

Privates are being pushed up be a conbination of lack of properties in certain areas and greedy landlords.

Example 4 bed semi just gone on a hardys, bath pool should be £895-995 tops and thats what connells advised me landlord has seen shortage of 4 beds in taunton and told agent £1200 a month.

TDBC will pay housing benefit up £133per week for a 3 bed house when which is £576 which just isnt possible privately you are lucky to find anything for £765-£700.

They need to means test social housing weed out the people who no longer need it.
So if all the people currently in social housing who no longer 'need it' suddenly get evicted and have to find different accommodation, that would mean demand would outstrip supply and private landlords could raise their rents even more. And how would you determine who doesn't need their home anymore? Basing it on earnings? Don't forget that people on benefits in Social housing live there pretty much rent free, us that live in social housing and work help to fill the council's coffers. If all social housing was lived in by those on benefits, the council would see no financial benefit. And some in social housing have lived in their properties for many years, it is their home, their children's home, they may be able afford higher private rentals now due to changes in circumstances over the years but why leave the security of a long term home and exchange it for the uncertainty of a private market.
[quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: Rising council rents why hasnt this been done earlier. Privates are being pushed up be a conbination of lack of properties in certain areas and greedy landlords. Example 4 bed semi just gone on a hardys, bath pool should be £895-995 tops and thats what connells advised me landlord has seen shortage of 4 beds in taunton and told agent £1200 a month. TDBC will pay housing benefit up £133per week for a 3 bed house when which is £576 which just isnt possible privately you are lucky to find anything for £765-£700. They need to means test social housing weed out the people who no longer need it.[/p][/quote]So if all the people currently in social housing who no longer 'need it' suddenly get evicted and have to find different accommodation, that would mean demand would outstrip supply and private landlords could raise their rents even more. And how would you determine who doesn't need their home anymore? Basing it on earnings? Don't forget that people on benefits in Social housing live there pretty much rent free, us that live in social housing and work help to fill the council's coffers. If all social housing was lived in by those on benefits, the council would see no financial benefit. And some in social housing have lived in their properties for many years, it is their home, their children's home, they may be able afford higher private rentals now due to changes in circumstances over the years but why leave the security of a long term home and exchange it for the uncertainty of a private market. Little_Owly

10:40pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Useacarpark.com says...

Somerset:SocialistPa
rty
wrote:
A member of the Somerset branch of the Socialist Party writes:

Somerset residents need fully-funded environmental planning

Residents in Somerset still find their homes underwater four weeks after the initial floods. Villages on the Somerset Levels have been most affected, and while communities expect some flooding in these areas, the affect of government cuts and climate change have meant these "once in a hundred years events" are happening every year.

This week Owen Patterson, the Tory environment secretary, visited Somerset to witness the damage himself. He left without speaking to any residents and has also made misleading statements, saying that the Coalition has spent more money on flood prevention than the previous Labour government. This is untrue.

One reason why this year's flooding has been so severe is because the river Parrett, where the flood water is supposed to drain into, has not been dredged. This is obviously due to the huge cuts to the Environment Agency - reportedly up to 40%. What makes this worse is that these dangers were already highlighted in a previous flooding plan written last year. The Con-Dem coalition has ignored this, and the wider concern about flooding, in favour of their austerity agenda. This is madness when put in the context of climate change.

Raising council tax bills to 'compensate' for central government cuts and continued underfunding is something that socialists oppose.

Somerset residents don't need vacuous statements from visiting ministers or Princes. We need fully-funded environmental planning, which can try to mitigate the problems of climate change, not exacerbate them. However, all the three main parties support cuts; to the Environment Agency as well as the NHS, education and councils. We need a new party that not only provides funding for environmental planning, but also uses a socialist plan of production to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions and pollution in order to reduce climate change.

For more information, or to join the Socialist Party, visit: www.socialistparty.o

rg.uk
1 question. If the socialist party have all the answers, why does no one vote for them? No one likes a know it all, usually because the think they know it all, but they are actually talking out their arse!
[quote][p][bold]Somerset:SocialistPa rty[/bold] wrote: A member of the Somerset branch of the Socialist Party writes: Somerset residents need fully-funded environmental planning Residents in Somerset still find their homes underwater four weeks after the initial floods. Villages on the Somerset Levels have been most affected, and while communities expect some flooding in these areas, the affect of government cuts and climate change have meant these "once in a hundred years events" are happening every year. This week Owen Patterson, the Tory environment secretary, visited Somerset to witness the damage himself. He left without speaking to any residents and has also made misleading statements, saying that the Coalition has spent more money on flood prevention than the previous Labour government. This is untrue. One reason why this year's flooding has been so severe is because the river Parrett, where the flood water is supposed to drain into, has not been dredged. This is obviously due to the huge cuts to the Environment Agency - reportedly up to 40%. What makes this worse is that these dangers were already highlighted in a previous flooding plan written last year. The Con-Dem coalition has ignored this, and the wider concern about flooding, in favour of their austerity agenda. This is madness when put in the context of climate change. Raising council tax bills to 'compensate' for central government cuts and continued underfunding is something that socialists oppose. Somerset residents don't need vacuous statements from visiting ministers or Princes. We need fully-funded environmental planning, which can try to mitigate the problems of climate change, not exacerbate them. However, all the three main parties support cuts; to the Environment Agency as well as the NHS, education and councils. We need a new party that not only provides funding for environmental planning, but also uses a socialist plan of production to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions and pollution in order to reduce climate change. For more information, or to join the Socialist Party, visit: www.socialistparty.o rg.uk[/p][/quote]1 question. If the socialist party have all the answers, why does no one vote for them? No one likes a know it all, usually because the think they know it all, but they are actually talking out their arse! Useacarpark.com

8:32am Sat 1 Feb 14

Mi_Coc says...

Little_Owly wrote:
Mi_Coc wrote:
Rising council rents why hasnt this been done earlier.

Privates are being pushed up be a conbination of lack of properties in certain areas and greedy landlords.

Example 4 bed semi just gone on a hardys, bath pool should be £895-995 tops and thats what connells advised me landlord has seen shortage of 4 beds in taunton and told agent £1200 a month.

TDBC will pay housing benefit up £133per week for a 3 bed house when which is £576 which just isnt possible privately you are lucky to find anything for £765-£700.

They need to means test social housing weed out the people who no longer need it.
So if all the people currently in social housing who no longer 'need it' suddenly get evicted and have to find different accommodation, that would mean demand would outstrip supply and private landlords could raise their rents even more. And how would you determine who doesn't need their home anymore? Basing it on earnings? Don't forget that people on benefits in Social housing live there pretty much rent free, us that live in social housing and work help to fill the council's coffers. If all social housing was lived in by those on benefits, the council would see no financial benefit. And some in social housing have lived in their properties for many years, it is their home, their children's home, they may be able afford higher private rentals now due to changes in circumstances over the years but why leave the security of a long term home and exchange it for the uncertainty of a private market.
What about private tenants who live in a house for years make it a home and then have two months to move out? Welcome to the real world.

The other option would be if social tenant wanted to stay as it's been their home etc they could have their rent increased to market write and viewed annually. I am sorry but there are needy people who can't afford to house themselves so those are better off need to sort themselves out so the less fortunate can benefit it's called society.
[quote][p][bold]Little_Owly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: Rising council rents why hasnt this been done earlier. Privates are being pushed up be a conbination of lack of properties in certain areas and greedy landlords. Example 4 bed semi just gone on a hardys, bath pool should be £895-995 tops and thats what connells advised me landlord has seen shortage of 4 beds in taunton and told agent £1200 a month. TDBC will pay housing benefit up £133per week for a 3 bed house when which is £576 which just isnt possible privately you are lucky to find anything for £765-£700. They need to means test social housing weed out the people who no longer need it.[/p][/quote]So if all the people currently in social housing who no longer 'need it' suddenly get evicted and have to find different accommodation, that would mean demand would outstrip supply and private landlords could raise their rents even more. And how would you determine who doesn't need their home anymore? Basing it on earnings? Don't forget that people on benefits in Social housing live there pretty much rent free, us that live in social housing and work help to fill the council's coffers. If all social housing was lived in by those on benefits, the council would see no financial benefit. And some in social housing have lived in their properties for many years, it is their home, their children's home, they may be able afford higher private rentals now due to changes in circumstances over the years but why leave the security of a long term home and exchange it for the uncertainty of a private market.[/p][/quote]What about private tenants who live in a house for years make it a home and then have two months to move out? Welcome to the real world. The other option would be if social tenant wanted to stay as it's been their home etc they could have their rent increased to market write and viewed annually. I am sorry but there are needy people who can't afford to house themselves so those are better off need to sort themselves out so the less fortunate can benefit it's called society. Mi_Coc

3:36pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Davedrip says...

I wasn't aware that Council house rents raised funds for general public use age. Perhaps we should have more respect then for these tenants? They would seem to be making a big contribution to public savings as described in this article?
I wasn't aware that Council house rents raised funds for general public use age. Perhaps we should have more respect then for these tenants? They would seem to be making a big contribution to public savings as described in this article? Davedrip

3:44pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Little_Owly says...

Mi_Coc wrote:
Little_Owly wrote:
Mi_Coc wrote:
Rising council rents why hasnt this been done earlier.

Privates are being pushed up be a conbination of lack of properties in certain areas and greedy landlords.

Example 4 bed semi just gone on a hardys, bath pool should be £895-995 tops and thats what connells advised me landlord has seen shortage of 4 beds in taunton and told agent £1200 a month.

TDBC will pay housing benefit up £133per week for a 3 bed house when which is £576 which just isnt possible privately you are lucky to find anything for £765-£700.

They need to means test social housing weed out the people who no longer need it.
So if all the people currently in social housing who no longer 'need it' suddenly get evicted and have to find different accommodation, that would mean demand would outstrip supply and private landlords could raise their rents even more. And how would you determine who doesn't need their home anymore? Basing it on earnings? Don't forget that people on benefits in Social housing live there pretty much rent free, us that live in social housing and work help to fill the council's coffers. If all social housing was lived in by those on benefits, the council would see no financial benefit. And some in social housing have lived in their properties for many years, it is their home, their children's home, they may be able afford higher private rentals now due to changes in circumstances over the years but why leave the security of a long term home and exchange it for the uncertainty of a private market.
What about private tenants who live in a house for years make it a home and then have two months to move out? Welcome to the real world.

The other option would be if social tenant wanted to stay as it's been their home etc they could have their rent increased to market write and viewed annually. I am sorry but there are needy people who can't afford to house themselves so those are better off need to sort themselves out so the less fortunate can benefit it's called society.
Mi_Croc - you say....'What about private tenants who live in a house for years make it a home and then have two months to move out? Welcome to the real world. The other option would be if social tenant wanted to stay as it's been their home etc they could have their rent increased to market write and viewed annually. I am sorry but there are needy people who can't afford to house themselves so those are better off need to sort themselves out so the less fortunate can benefit it's called society.'

I would agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the unfairness of private tenants making a home in a private rental then having two months to move out, the nature of private renting means that there is litle security, renting privately should always take into account the fact that the house could be taken back at any time (dependant on contract). I have moved from rented property to rented property so understand the frustration and disappointment (and expense) this causes. That is one of the downsides of renting unfortunately.

Your suggestion that social tenants could have their rent increased to that of market value and reviewed annually would mean that many who are struggling but managing to pay their social rent without the use of benefits would suddenly find themselves homeless, unable to meet their rent payments. Council rents are lower but they arent THAT low. And again I point out that many who have council houses who are on benefits are not contributing to the councils funds so why penalise those that are. If you put someone on benefits into every council house, the council tax rates would have to rocket.

I think the main problem is that private rents are just too high in general and something needs to be done about fair rents. If I had to go out and rent a private home for my family now I would be looking around £800 pcm, add to that council tax and you would be looking at around £1k a month. That is outrageous. You say needy people cant afford to house themselves, neither could the rest of us if social housing was be put up to this 'market level'. We would then become 'the needy' you talk about! The rental market has just got out of hand, it needs to be capped. The answer also is, more social housing, and thankfully Taunton Dean are building new council houses very soon near Asda which is most welcome. More social housing would decrease private rental demand and the rental prices would have to come down. Supply and demand.
[quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little_Owly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: Rising council rents why hasnt this been done earlier. Privates are being pushed up be a conbination of lack of properties in certain areas and greedy landlords. Example 4 bed semi just gone on a hardys, bath pool should be £895-995 tops and thats what connells advised me landlord has seen shortage of 4 beds in taunton and told agent £1200 a month. TDBC will pay housing benefit up £133per week for a 3 bed house when which is £576 which just isnt possible privately you are lucky to find anything for £765-£700. They need to means test social housing weed out the people who no longer need it.[/p][/quote]So if all the people currently in social housing who no longer 'need it' suddenly get evicted and have to find different accommodation, that would mean demand would outstrip supply and private landlords could raise their rents even more. And how would you determine who doesn't need their home anymore? Basing it on earnings? Don't forget that people on benefits in Social housing live there pretty much rent free, us that live in social housing and work help to fill the council's coffers. If all social housing was lived in by those on benefits, the council would see no financial benefit. And some in social housing have lived in their properties for many years, it is their home, their children's home, they may be able afford higher private rentals now due to changes in circumstances over the years but why leave the security of a long term home and exchange it for the uncertainty of a private market.[/p][/quote]What about private tenants who live in a house for years make it a home and then have two months to move out? Welcome to the real world. The other option would be if social tenant wanted to stay as it's been their home etc they could have their rent increased to market write and viewed annually. I am sorry but there are needy people who can't afford to house themselves so those are better off need to sort themselves out so the less fortunate can benefit it's called society.[/p][/quote]Mi_Croc - you say....'What about private tenants who live in a house for years make it a home and then have two months to move out? Welcome to the real world. The other option would be if social tenant wanted to stay as it's been their home etc they could have their rent increased to market write and viewed annually. I am sorry but there are needy people who can't afford to house themselves so those are better off need to sort themselves out so the less fortunate can benefit it's called society.' I would agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the unfairness of private tenants making a home in a private rental then having two months to move out, the nature of private renting means that there is litle security, renting privately should always take into account the fact that the house could be taken back at any time (dependant on contract). I have moved from rented property to rented property so understand the frustration and disappointment (and expense) this causes. That is one of the downsides of renting unfortunately. Your suggestion that social tenants could have their rent increased to that of market value and reviewed annually would mean that many who are struggling but managing to pay their social rent without the use of benefits would suddenly find themselves homeless, unable to meet their rent payments. Council rents are lower but they arent THAT low. And again I point out that many who have council houses who are on benefits are not contributing to the councils funds so why penalise those that are. If you put someone on benefits into every council house, the council tax rates would have to rocket. I think the main problem is that private rents are just too high in general and something needs to be done about fair rents. If I had to go out and rent a private home for my family now I would be looking around £800 pcm, add to that council tax and you would be looking at around £1k a month. That is outrageous. You say needy people cant afford to house themselves, neither could the rest of us if social housing was be put up to this 'market level'. We would then become 'the needy' you talk about! The rental market has just got out of hand, it needs to be capped. The answer also is, more social housing, and thankfully Taunton Dean are building new council houses very soon near Asda which is most welcome. More social housing would decrease private rental demand and the rental prices would have to come down. Supply and demand. Little_Owly

3:48pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Little_Owly says...

Davedrip wrote:
I wasn't aware that Council house rents raised funds for general public use age. Perhaps we should have more respect then for these tenants? They would seem to be making a big contribution to public savings as described in this article?
Well said Davedrip.
[quote][p][bold]Davedrip[/bold] wrote: I wasn't aware that Council house rents raised funds for general public use age. Perhaps we should have more respect then for these tenants? They would seem to be making a big contribution to public savings as described in this article?[/p][/quote]Well said Davedrip. Little_Owly

10:34pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Mi_Coc says...

Little_Owly wrote:
Mi_Coc wrote:
Little_Owly wrote:
Mi_Coc wrote:
Rising council rents why hasnt this been done earlier.

Privates are being pushed up be a conbination of lack of properties in certain areas and greedy landlords.

Example 4 bed semi just gone on a hardys, bath pool should be £895-995 tops and thats what connells advised me landlord has seen shortage of 4 beds in taunton and told agent £1200 a month.

TDBC will pay housing benefit up £133per week for a 3 bed house when which is £576 which just isnt possible privately you are lucky to find anything for £765-£700.

They need to means test social housing weed out the people who no longer need it.
So if all the people currently in social housing who no longer 'need it' suddenly get evicted and have to find different accommodation, that would mean demand would outstrip supply and private landlords could raise their rents even more. And how would you determine who doesn't need their home anymore? Basing it on earnings? Don't forget that people on benefits in Social housing live there pretty much rent free, us that live in social housing and work help to fill the council's coffers. If all social housing was lived in by those on benefits, the council would see no financial benefit. And some in social housing have lived in their properties for many years, it is their home, their children's home, they may be able afford higher private rentals now due to changes in circumstances over the years but why leave the security of a long term home and exchange it for the uncertainty of a private market.
What about private tenants who live in a house for years make it a home and then have two months to move out? Welcome to the real world.

The other option would be if social tenant wanted to stay as it's been their home etc they could have their rent increased to market write and viewed annually. I am sorry but there are needy people who can't afford to house themselves so those are better off need to sort themselves out so the less fortunate can benefit it's called society.
Mi_Croc - you say....'What about private tenants who live in a house for years make it a home and then have two months to move out? Welcome to the real world. The other option would be if social tenant wanted to stay as it's been their home etc they could have their rent increased to market write and viewed annually. I am sorry but there are needy people who can't afford to house themselves so those are better off need to sort themselves out so the less fortunate can benefit it's called society.'

I would agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the unfairness of private tenants making a home in a private rental then having two months to move out, the nature of private renting means that there is litle security, renting privately should always take into account the fact that the house could be taken back at any time (dependant on contract). I have moved from rented property to rented property so understand the frustration and disappointment (and expense) this causes. That is one of the downsides of renting unfortunately.

Your suggestion that social tenants could have their rent increased to that of market value and reviewed annually would mean that many who are struggling but managing to pay their social rent without the use of benefits would suddenly find themselves homeless, unable to meet their rent payments. Council rents are lower but they arent THAT low. And again I point out that many who have council houses who are on benefits are not contributing to the councils funds so why penalise those that are. If you put someone on benefits into every council house, the council tax rates would have to rocket.

I think the main problem is that private rents are just too high in general and something needs to be done about fair rents. If I had to go out and rent a private home for my family now I would be looking around £800 pcm, add to that council tax and you would be looking at around £1k a month. That is outrageous. You say needy people cant afford to house themselves, neither could the rest of us if social housing was be put up to this 'market level'. We would then become 'the needy' you talk about! The rental market has just got out of hand, it needs to be capped. The answer also is, more social housing, and thankfully Taunton Dean are building new council houses very soon near Asda which is most welcome. More social housing would decrease private rental demand and the rental prices would have to come down. Supply and demand.
I would only put them up market rent if they met an income threshold. I don't propose market rents for everyone just those who say have a household income over a certain level so £26-30k.
[quote][p][bold]Little_Owly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little_Owly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: Rising council rents why hasnt this been done earlier. Privates are being pushed up be a conbination of lack of properties in certain areas and greedy landlords. Example 4 bed semi just gone on a hardys, bath pool should be £895-995 tops and thats what connells advised me landlord has seen shortage of 4 beds in taunton and told agent £1200 a month. TDBC will pay housing benefit up £133per week for a 3 bed house when which is £576 which just isnt possible privately you are lucky to find anything for £765-£700. They need to means test social housing weed out the people who no longer need it.[/p][/quote]So if all the people currently in social housing who no longer 'need it' suddenly get evicted and have to find different accommodation, that would mean demand would outstrip supply and private landlords could raise their rents even more. And how would you determine who doesn't need their home anymore? Basing it on earnings? Don't forget that people on benefits in Social housing live there pretty much rent free, us that live in social housing and work help to fill the council's coffers. If all social housing was lived in by those on benefits, the council would see no financial benefit. And some in social housing have lived in their properties for many years, it is their home, their children's home, they may be able afford higher private rentals now due to changes in circumstances over the years but why leave the security of a long term home and exchange it for the uncertainty of a private market.[/p][/quote]What about private tenants who live in a house for years make it a home and then have two months to move out? Welcome to the real world. The other option would be if social tenant wanted to stay as it's been their home etc they could have their rent increased to market write and viewed annually. I am sorry but there are needy people who can't afford to house themselves so those are better off need to sort themselves out so the less fortunate can benefit it's called society.[/p][/quote]Mi_Croc - you say....'What about private tenants who live in a house for years make it a home and then have two months to move out? Welcome to the real world. The other option would be if social tenant wanted to stay as it's been their home etc they could have their rent increased to market write and viewed annually. I am sorry but there are needy people who can't afford to house themselves so those are better off need to sort themselves out so the less fortunate can benefit it's called society.' I would agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the unfairness of private tenants making a home in a private rental then having two months to move out, the nature of private renting means that there is litle security, renting privately should always take into account the fact that the house could be taken back at any time (dependant on contract). I have moved from rented property to rented property so understand the frustration and disappointment (and expense) this causes. That is one of the downsides of renting unfortunately. Your suggestion that social tenants could have their rent increased to that of market value and reviewed annually would mean that many who are struggling but managing to pay their social rent without the use of benefits would suddenly find themselves homeless, unable to meet their rent payments. Council rents are lower but they arent THAT low. And again I point out that many who have council houses who are on benefits are not contributing to the councils funds so why penalise those that are. If you put someone on benefits into every council house, the council tax rates would have to rocket. I think the main problem is that private rents are just too high in general and something needs to be done about fair rents. If I had to go out and rent a private home for my family now I would be looking around £800 pcm, add to that council tax and you would be looking at around £1k a month. That is outrageous. You say needy people cant afford to house themselves, neither could the rest of us if social housing was be put up to this 'market level'. We would then become 'the needy' you talk about! The rental market has just got out of hand, it needs to be capped. The answer also is, more social housing, and thankfully Taunton Dean are building new council houses very soon near Asda which is most welcome. More social housing would decrease private rental demand and the rental prices would have to come down. Supply and demand.[/p][/quote]I would only put them up market rent if they met an income threshold. I don't propose market rents for everyone just those who say have a household income over a certain level so £26-30k. Mi_Coc

4:16pm Sun 2 Feb 14

tom norman says...

I live in a housing association rented house havent had a pay rise in 8 years cant get benefits because i work 40 hours a week, where do u expect the extra for the extra rent would come from no one can pick it out from fresh air lts bad enough taking the hit for 8 years of bill and food price rises without extra rent and council tax
I live in a housing association rented house havent had a pay rise in 8 years cant get benefits because i work 40 hours a week, where do u expect the extra for the extra rent would come from no one can pick it out from fresh air lts bad enough taking the hit for 8 years of bill and food price rises without extra rent and council tax tom norman

4:20pm Sun 2 Feb 14

feeby12007 says...

Anyway, back to the council wanting to raise council tax...
Anyway, back to the council wanting to raise council tax... feeby12007

5:36pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Mi_Coc says...

tom norman wrote:
I live in a housing association rented house havent had a pay rise in 8 years cant get benefits because i work 40 hours a week, where do u expect the extra for the extra rent would come from no one can pick it out from fresh air lts bad enough taking the hit for 8 years of bill and food price rises without extra rent and council tax
It would depend on what you earn if you earn under 30k fare enough. Of you earn over why should you get subsidised housing.

The increases proposed aren't much and they are dam site less than private so count your blessings. We're do you think the rest off the renting/home owning population do when they have increase in living costs. I am you have luxury so like sky and iPhone that you could cut back on. 60 inch tv etc

There are people earning in excess of 50k a year living in social housing,
[quote][p][bold]tom norman[/bold] wrote: I live in a housing association rented house havent had a pay rise in 8 years cant get benefits because i work 40 hours a week, where do u expect the extra for the extra rent would come from no one can pick it out from fresh air lts bad enough taking the hit for 8 years of bill and food price rises without extra rent and council tax[/p][/quote]It would depend on what you earn if you earn under 30k fare enough. Of you earn over why should you get subsidised housing. The increases proposed aren't much and they are dam site less than private so count your blessings. We're do you think the rest off the renting/home owning population do when they have increase in living costs. I am you have luxury so like sky and iPhone that you could cut back on. 60 inch tv etc There are people earning in excess of 50k a year living in social housing, Mi_Coc

9:37pm Sun 2 Feb 14

tom norman says...

Im on about 13k a year before tax and national ins and that has not changed for 8 years and then only every 2 or 3 years before that and no i have not got iphones ,sky or 60 inch tv i cant afford them so please stop stereo typing people
Im on about 13k a year before tax and national ins and that has not changed for 8 years and then only every 2 or 3 years before that and no i have not got iphones ,sky or 60 inch tv i cant afford them so please stop stereo typing people tom norman

10:23am Mon 3 Feb 14

Mi_Coc says...

tom norman wrote:
Im on about 13k a year before tax and national ins and that has not changed for 8 years and then only every 2 or 3 years before that and no i have not got iphones ,sky or 60 inch tv i cant afford them so please stop stereo typing people
You would be excempt anyway due to low income.

I am talk about people on above average income like 26k plus.

People like you need social housing.
[quote][p][bold]tom norman[/bold] wrote: Im on about 13k a year before tax and national ins and that has not changed for 8 years and then only every 2 or 3 years before that and no i have not got iphones ,sky or 60 inch tv i cant afford them so please stop stereo typing people[/p][/quote]You would be excempt anyway due to low income. I am talk about people on above average income like 26k plus. People like you need social housing. Mi_Coc

4:58pm Tue 4 Feb 14

somered says...

Mi_Coc wrote:
tom norman wrote:
Im on about 13k a year before tax and national ins and that has not changed for 8 years and then only every 2 or 3 years before that and no i have not got iphones ,sky or 60 inch tv i cant afford them so please stop stereo typing people
You would be excempt anyway due to low income.

I am talk about people on above average income like 26k plus.

People like you need social housing.
From stereotyping to patronising in one comment is there no end to your debating skills?
[quote][p][bold]Mi_Coc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tom norman[/bold] wrote: Im on about 13k a year before tax and national ins and that has not changed for 8 years and then only every 2 or 3 years before that and no i have not got iphones ,sky or 60 inch tv i cant afford them so please stop stereo typing people[/p][/quote]You would be excempt anyway due to low income. I am talk about people on above average income like 26k plus. People like you need social housing.[/p][/quote]From stereotyping to patronising in one comment is there no end to your debating skills? somered

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree