Today's most viewed
| NEWS | | | | | SPORT | | | | | INTERVIEWS |  | | | FEATURED ARTICLE | | | | COMPETITIONS | | | |
|
|
|
Tempers flare at mobile home park meeting
TEMPERS ran high at a meeting to discuss the future of a mobile home park tonight, which could be sold to pay for much-needed repairs.
Residents of Rayners Avenue Mobile Home park in Loudwater were angry to discover the ground rent paid to Wycombe District Council (WDC) over its 40 year history, had not been re-invested in the maintenance of the site, but rather went into a general fund.
WDC says the park's roads, drains and the asbestos roofs on some of the outbuildings need replacing at a cost of £500,000 and it does not have the money to do it.
A sink fund towards repairs at the site was set up four years ago but only stands at £15,000.
Steve Guy, parliamentary spokesman for Wycombe Lib Dems, asked council officers chairing the meeting: "How can you justify not being able to fund the money when you have taken the income on the site for 40 years?"
Clive Brash, assistant asset manager at WDC, admitted the park made a surplus of £80,000 through rent, but someone in the council had made a "historical" decision this money would go into a general fund.
"We're accepting that there have probably been mistakes in the past," he added, "We're trying to find a solution for where we are today."
Chris Watson, cabinet member for homes and housing, told residents WDC would end up footing the bill for the repairs if it sold the park.
He said: "If we sell the site - and we can only sell it to a professional site owner - the price which we will get will be considerably less than the market value because we shall have to give a reduction that will reflect what needs to be spent on your roads.
"If we sell the site we will in fact have paid for all the repairs."
His comments were met with laughter, however.
Residents at the site, who own their homes but pay rent for the land they sit on, are worried fees could shoot up if a private owner is brought in.
Home owners at tonight's meeting suggested the repairs be carried out piecemeal, rather than in one hit as suggested by WDC, and urged officers to find the £500,000 needed from within council coffers.
Rosemary Barney, who has lived at the site for four years, said: "Let's face facts, if you dug deep enough you can find that money."
Other suggestions as an alternative to the sale of the site included putting up council tax rates or letting the residents run the park themselves with help from WDC.
Tonight's meeting was held as part of a 12 week consultation with residents.
They have until Friday, October 3 to put their comments to the council, via independent consultants Tribal, who were hired by WDC for £7,500 to investigate the possibility of selling the land.
Mr Brash said all residents comments put forward at the meeting would be put to the council's cabinet in December, which will then make a recommendation about the proposal to sell the site.
A final decision will be then be taken by a meeting of the full council.
10:36pm Monday 4th August 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Ivor on 12:37am Tue 5 Aug 08
[quote]WDC says the park's roads, drains and the asbestos roofs on some of the outbuildings need replacing at a cost of £500,000 and it does not have the money to do it.[/quote]So the town can't find £500,000 to carry out maintenance at a place where people live but £250,000 can be wasted on a feasibility study on moving the football ground!
With all the Council Tax money we pay how come there isn’t enough money?
[bold]Have you read Ivor’s blog today?[/bold] Click on the [bold]“Opinion”[/bold] link on the menu on the left then click on [bold]“Readers Blogs”[/bold].
WDC says the park's roads, drains and the asbestos roofs on some of the outbuildings need replacing at a cost of £500,000 and it does not have the money to do it.
So the town can't find £500,000 to carry out maintenance at a place where people live but £250,000 can be wasted on a feasibility study on moving the football ground!
With all the Council Tax money we pay how come there isn’t enough money?
Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the
“Opinion” link on the menu on the left then click on
“Readers Blogs”.
Posted by: George - Wycombe on 1:22am Tue 5 Aug 08
"someone at the council made a 'historical' decision".
Fancy words for a **** up.
People come before profit from sale, the residents suggestion of doing essential work now and rotating the remaining work is sensible.
WDC GET YOU ACT TOGETHER YOU A FAILING THE PEOPLE.
"someone at the council made a 'historical' decision".
Fancy words for a **** up.
People come before profit from sale, the residents suggestion of doing essential work now and rotating the remaining work is sensible.
WDC GET YOU ACT TOGETHER YOU A FAILING THE PEOPLE.
Posted by: fedup, Bucks on 2:01am Tue 5 Aug 08
Thats the whole point of paying ground rent .... the council will have to cough up their error and mistake and they should pay for it ... cut the wages of the bigs wigs who do nothing to earn they huge wages and bonuses and get on with the repairs that need to be done .....
but then again where does our money go the we pay on council tax .. every things get cut , and we pay more ....
Thats the whole point of paying ground rent .... the council will have to cough up their error and mistake and they should pay for it ... cut the wages of the bigs wigs who do nothing to earn they huge wages and bonuses and get on with the repairs that need to be done .....
but then again where does our money go the we pay on council tax .. every things get cut , and we pay more ....
Posted by: Observer, of Housing on 6:36am Tue 5 Aug 08
Let's face it - WDC will be either paying for the repairs by getting a reduced price for the sale of the site to a private development company, or it can retain and pay for the repairs itself.
How many reserves do WDC currently have?
Suely, if rents for 40 years have gone into general council revenue, partially enabling the council to build up reserves, then te funds to revovate the site should logically be taken from reserves.
It is short sighted to sell off the site.
It helps the council meet its obligations for affordable housing and it would be reducing that ability if the site is sold to a private company.
If the council says it cannot afford to make the repairs, how would selling it to a private profit making company be any better?
Let's face it - WDC will be either paying for the repairs by getting a reduced price for the sale of the site to a private development company, or it can retain and pay for the repairs itself.
How many reserves do WDC currently have?
Suely, if rents for 40 years have gone into general council revenue, partially enabling the council to build up reserves, then te funds to revovate the site should logically be taken from reserves.
It is short sighted to sell off the site.
It helps the council meet its obligations for affordable housing and it would be reducing that ability if the site is sold to a private company.
If the council says it cannot afford to make the repairs, how would selling it to a private profit making company be any better?
Posted by: SBJones, Wycombe on 8:27am Tue 5 Aug 08
sue the council for not maintaining the park its their obligation if the residents have paid rent all these years
sue the council for not maintaining the park its their obligation if the residents have paid rent all these years
Posted by: Town Cryer, Wycombe on 8:42am Tue 5 Aug 08
[quote]Steve Guy, parliamentary spokesman for Wycombe Lib Dems, asked council officers chairing the meeting: "How can you justify not being able to fund the money when you have taken the income on the site for 40 years?"[/quote]
Seems at least on group in wycombe is in touch with residents needs.
Some of the councillors i beleive were also Lib Dems from local wards who made very valid and pertinent points regarding ways to protect the homes
Steve Guy, parliamentary spokesman for Wycombe Lib Dems, asked council officers chairing the meeting: "How can you justify not being able to fund the money when you have taken the income on the site for 40 years?"
Seems at least on group in wycombe is in touch with residents needs.
Some of the councillors i beleive were also Lib Dems from local wards who made very valid and pertinent points regarding ways to protect the homes
Posted by: Spitfire, High Wycombe on 9:22am Tue 5 Aug 08
[quote][bold]SBJones[/bold] wrote:
sue the council for not maintaining the park its their obligation if the residents have paid rent all these years[/quote] Seems to be the way to go.
SBJones wrote:
sue the council for not maintaining the park its their obligation if the residents have paid rent all these years
Seems to be the way to go.
Posted by: Lo_Wycombe, Bowerdean Rd on 9:43am Tue 5 Aug 08
I don't understand what all the fuss is about, who would want to live in a mobile home surrounded by asbestos?
If these houses are so “mobile” can’t they just be moved somewhere else, like Milton Keynes?
I don't understand what all the fuss is about, who would want to live in a mobile home surrounded by asbestos?
If these houses are so “mobile” can’t they just be moved somewhere else, like Milton Keynes?
Posted by: needmoresleep, High Wycombe on 10:18am Tue 5 Aug 08
The council can't walk away from this - it's an astounding error to begin with, and an even bigger one to be chickening out of taking responsibility for it. Why should residents be expected to empathise with the council? Look, WDC, these residents don't want to be out of a house or have their rent hiked, especially during the credit crunch because your funds are needed elsewhere on something perceivably less crucial. These people vote for you. Sort it out now, or hang your heads in shame!
The council can't walk away from this - it's an astounding error to begin with, and an even bigger one to be chickening out of taking responsibility for it. Why should residents be expected to empathise with the council? Look, WDC, these residents don't want to be out of a house or have their rent hiked, especially during the credit crunch because your funds are needed elsewhere on something perceivably less crucial. These people vote for you. Sort it out now, or hang your heads in shame!
Posted by: littlemiss, Wycombe on 10:28am Tue 5 Aug 08
Our council makes me sick, where the hell is all our money going? Sack at least half of the MP's.
Lo_Wycombe - aren't these mobile homes static mobile homes, therefore they can't move? How would you like it if you were to be told to move to Milton Keynes? Why SHOULD they move? The park has been here for 40 years, and these people have paid their way throughout that period. It's hardly their fault that our council/government etc are so incompetant and are capable of ****ing money up the wall with apparently no regard to our towns inhabitants
Our council makes me sick, where the hell is all our money going? Sack at least half of the MP's.
Lo_Wycombe - aren't these mobile homes static mobile homes, therefore they can't move? How would you like it if you were to be told to move to Milton Keynes? Why SHOULD they move? The park has been here for 40 years, and these people have paid their way throughout that period. It's hardly their fault that our council/government etc are so incompetant and are capable of ****ing money up the wall with apparently no regard to our towns inhabitants
Posted by: influxuk, terriers on 10:29am Tue 5 Aug 08
thats what i was thinking - that site is an eyesore - i wouldt be seen dead there...........get rid and get some nice places built on it
thats what i was thinking - that site is an eyesore - i wouldt be seen dead there...........get rid and get some nice places built on it
Posted by: Elmo, High Wycombe on 10:33am Tue 5 Aug 08
Council sells land to fund repairs.
Council contracts new owners to carry out repairs.
New owners immediately hike up the ground rent to an unsustainable level "to fund repairs."
Repairs don't get carried out.
New owner offers to buy mobile homes from extremely unhappy residents at a quarter of their true value.
Some residents refuse to sell or pay exorbitant rates so are evicted.
New owners now have nice plot of land for next to nothing.
I'll buy it, anyone want to back me?
Council sells land to fund repairs.
Council contracts new owners to carry out repairs.
New owners immediately hike up the ground rent to an unsustainable level "to fund repairs."
Repairs don't get carried out.
New owner offers to buy mobile homes from extremely unhappy residents at a quarter of their true value.
Some residents refuse to sell or pay exorbitant rates so are evicted.
New owners now have nice plot of land for next to nothing.
I'll buy it, anyone want to back me?
Posted by: Elmo, High Wycombe on 10:43am Tue 5 Aug 08
Hang on, I missed a step.
New owners now have nice plot of land [bold]with mobile homes in-situ[/bold] for next to nothing.
New owners offer the council a solution to the sudden housing shortage by using these newly emptied mobile homes as council accommodation, so getting the land, the ground rent and the housing rent with very little outlay.
Nice bit of business.
Hang on, I missed a step.
New owners now have nice plot of land
with mobile homes in-situ for next to nothing.
New owners offer the council a solution to the sudden housing shortage by using these newly emptied mobile homes as council accommodation, so getting the land, the ground rent and the housing rent with very little outlay.
Nice bit of business.
Posted by: Elmo, High Wycombe on 11:24am Tue 5 Aug 08
Ok, my solution.
The council offers the residents the opportunity to form there own site owning company, so they can buy the site themselves at a fair price. Include in the price the reduction to fund the repairs, plus a little extra as a good will gesture for messing up so badly in the first place.
The new company would have to complete the repairs inside a reasonable time frame to a reasonable standard. However if the residents choose to offer their own services to carry out these repairs to keep down the price, then all the better.
So the council would be shot of the mill-stone this site appears to be to them, the repairs are completed and the site will be up to the standard the resident would want (i.e. better than required) and the residents would each own a joint share in the company that owns the freehold of the site.
Everyone's a winner, as long as the council keep to a reasonable price.
Ok, my solution.
The council offers the residents the opportunity to form there own site owning company, so they can buy the site themselves at a fair price. Include in the price the reduction to fund the repairs, plus a little extra as a good will gesture for messing up so badly in the first place.
The new company would have to complete the repairs inside a reasonable time frame to a reasonable standard. However if the residents choose to offer their own services to carry out these repairs to keep down the price, then all the better.
So the council would be shot of the mill-stone this site appears to be to them, the repairs are completed and the site will be up to the standard the resident would want (i.e. better than required) and the residents would each own a joint share in the company that owns the freehold of the site.
Everyone's a winner, as long as the council keep to a reasonable price.
Posted by: George - Wycombe on 2:17pm Tue 5 Aug 08
Elmo, Where would the residents get the money to purchase the site?
Where did all the Wycombe Carbuncle (Eden) money come from?
Elmo, Where would the residents get the money to purchase the site?
Where did all the Wycombe Carbuncle (Eden) money come from?
Posted by: Elmo, High Wycombe on 2:46pm Tue 5 Aug 08
Dunno, business loan? Mortgage? Council grant?
It's just an idea.
Dunno, business loan? Mortgage? Council grant?
It's just an idea.
Posted by: Elmo, High Wycombe on 2:47pm Tue 5 Aug 08
Dunno, business loan? Mortgage? Council grant?
It's just an idea.
Dunno, business loan? Mortgage? Council grant?
It's just an idea.
Posted by: J B Blackett, Chepping Wycombe on 2:59pm Tue 5 Aug 08
Whatever the solution, it is taken for granted that the council tax payer will fund it all.
We are innocent I tell you, unlike the self-serving, incompetent politicians !
Whatever the solution, it is taken for granted that the council tax payer will fund it all.
We are innocent I tell you, unlike the self-serving, incompetent politicians !
Posted by: yabbadabbadoo, wooburn green on 5:46pm Tue 5 Aug 08
maybe thats the answer J B Blackett- maybe the residents can be exempt from paying the council tax for however long it takes to pay the council for the site and to get repairs done are down to the residents then to sort out.
obviously it'd have to be done properly with legal eagles to make sure EVERYONE paid in to a pot and then repair bills taken out as and when.
if any of them can do any of the work themselves then even better.
any left over at the end is equalled out to them all.
i'm sure there's something in that.
maybe thats the answer J B Blackett- maybe the residents can be exempt from paying the council tax for however long it takes to pay the council for the site and to get repairs done are down to the residents then to sort out.
obviously it'd have to be done properly with legal eagles to make sure EVERYONE paid in to a pot and then repair bills taken out as and when.
if any of them can do any of the work themselves then even better.
any left over at the end is equalled out to them all.
i'm sure there's something in that.
Posted by: Observer, of Finance on 7:40pm Tue 5 Aug 08
George - WDC only provided some of the land for Eden.
The building and development costs, etc. were paid by the developer, Multiplex or whoever, funded by loans from a Bank in Scotland through a holding company or Trust in Jersey or Guernsey or some other tax haven.
The council does hold substantial reserves but it did not want to risk the funds on the shopping centre. It would have put council taxpayers at risk in carrying the can if it all went belly up.
WDC might be able to mortgage its interest in the shopping centre but in this world economic climate it would be a hopeless case.
George - WDC only provided some of the land for Eden.
The building and development costs, etc. were paid by the developer, Multiplex or whoever, funded by loans from a Bank in Scotland through a holding company or Trust in Jersey or Guernsey or some other tax haven.
The council does hold substantial reserves but it did not want to risk the funds on the shopping centre. It would have put council taxpayers at risk in carrying the can if it all went belly up.
WDC might be able to mortgage its interest in the shopping centre but in this world economic climate it would be a hopeless case.
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!
