asredastheycome
Well-known member
Not seen it but it reminds me of Heaven Can Wait where he wants to sell Tuna that's not killing Dolphins
Middlesbrough Council Approves Asset Sell Off To Avoid Bankruptcy
- Thread starter Air Resistance
- Start date
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
Birmingham is in the **** because of its disgustingly misogynistic employment policies, persisted with long after it received legal advice to the contrary. Sometimes, it is not the governments fault.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
The point is that you can only sell the land once. Once it’s gone it’s gone forever.
homesickblues
Well-known member
Dont we just need someone to mange the budget better?
RedAsABeetroot
Well-known member
I've always argued that this is what should have happened instead of abolishing CCC.
Time and again councils are appealing decisions in neighbouring areas or doing things to the detriment of adjacent areas. Teesside Park has exacerbated traffic problems at the A66/A19 interchange and screwed the town centres. Swan's Corner housing estate scuppered any chance of a new link road into Middlesbrough (although the NT may have never cooperated).
Last edited:
RedAsABeetroot
Well-known member
I don't think many will agree. Council budgets have been cut severely at a time where there have also been a series of unprecedented events that have had a massive negative impact.
TheLodger
Well-known member
This is exactly what we are attempting to do. But we do have to balance a budget we never supported last year exactly because of the situation we have found ourselves in this year.
Currently about 50% of councils are reporting that they will struggle to balance their budget in the next 2/3 years and by law all councils must pass a balanced budget.
homesickblues
Well-known member
Yes, I understand that it is difficult with not getting the funding you requested, but after selling the assets, the council need to manage the cash so its not in the same position in a few years time.
RedAsABeetroot
Well-known member
I was pleased to see your comment that some services would be in-sourced again. NYCC established a company to manage road maintenance. Unsurprisingly one of their own employees left to head the business up on an eye-watering salary. I hope he wasn't earning that in his previous role.
I worry that salary grades are determined by the cost (value) of services managed, and therefore as costs increase potentially so do the rewards for those managing those costs.
TheLodger
Well-known member
The council need to do things totally different than how it was done before, because as others have said, quite rightly- we can only sell stuff once, and once it's gone it's gone.
TheLodger
Well-known member
Agree 100%, but sadly top salaries are generally decided via market forces.
newusername
Well-known member
You are right that sites at St Hilda's, off Borough Road/Union Street and Marton Burn Road are empty and should be a priority for new development. But St Hilda's is only 16ha, Borough Road 6ha and Marton Burn Road is 10ha, in total about half the size of the golf course. My understanding is that the Council are looking at mixed use commercial regeneration at St Hilda's & University expansion at Borough Road not pure housing stock. I don't know why MBR hasn't been sold and built out for housing yet though.
The starting point shouldn't be selling off the "family silver" but effectively that is what the council are proposing to do. They'll sell the course & get a single capital receipt, use that to cover this budget shortfall and in a couple of years time they'll have to sell something else when the money runs out again.
Selling the golf course for housing would generate a much larger capital receipt and increased revenue from council tax. That could enable them to keep some of the other assets & prevent future sales and maybe build some new council houses.
Look at Goldsmith Street in Norwich, a 105 Passivhaus homes built directly by the council, rented with secure tenancies at fixed social rents. That site was only 1.1ha. The council could use some of the receipt from the golf course sale to build a 1,000 similar homes on MBR, again generating revenue from rent & council tax.
'A masterpiece': Norwich council houses win Stirling architecture prize
Street of 105 homes hailed as high-quality architecture in its most environmentally and socially conscious form
www.theguardian.com
To me that seems to be commercial long term thinking rather than panicked short term thinking.
I'm not a builder but I prefer densification of urban environments rather than endless urban sprawl onto greenfields around our towns and cities. Building in town puts housing close to existing services (GPs, schools, shops, buses) and it is cheaper to expand them to accommodate the new residents than build new ones just for the new suburb.
I know you are wrong about St Hilda's in that housing development is part of the plan. Part of the Gresham rebuild is well under way.You are right that sites at St Hilda's, off Borough Road/Union Street and Marton Burn Road are empty and should be a priority for new development. But St Hilda's is only 16ha, Borough Road 6ha and Marton Burn Road is 10ha, in total about half the size of the golf course. My understanding is that the Council are looking at mixed use commercial regeneration at St Hilda's & University expansion at Borough Road not pure housing stock. I don't know why MBR hasn't been sold and built out for housing yet though.
The starting point shouldn't be selling off the "family silver" but effectively that is what the council are proposing to do. They'll sell the course & get a single capital receipt, use that to cover this budget shortfall and in a couple of years time they'll have to sell something else when the money runs out again.
Selling the golf course for housing would generate a much larger capital receipt and increased revenue from council tax. That could enable them to keep some of the other assets & prevent future sales and maybe build some new council houses.
Look at Goldsmith Street in Norwich, a 105 Passivhaus homes built directly by the council, rented with secure tenancies at fixed social rents. That site was only 1.1ha. The council could use some of the receipt from the golf course sale to build a 1,000 similar homes on MBR, again generating revenue from rent & council tax.
'A masterpiece': Norwich council houses win Stirling architecture prize
Street of 105 homes hailed as high-quality architecture in its most environmentally and socially conscious form
To me that seems to be commercial long term thinking rather than panicked short term thinking.
I'm not a builder but I prefer densification of urban environments rather than endless urban sprawl onto greenfields around our towns and cities. Building in town puts housing close to existing services (GPs, schools, shops, buses) and it is cheaper to expand them to accommodate the new residents than build new ones just for the new suburb.
Retaining a golf course and a green wildlife corridor along Ladgate Lane and south Middlesbrough is a real positive for most of us.
newusername
Well-known member
Hence why I said...
Golf courses in cities are nice to look at & amazing for those that have a chance to play on them but they tend to be ecological disaster areas with a complete lack of biodiversity and large amounts of chemicals (fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides) used to keep it that way.
TheLodger
Well-known member
The very reason why I want to keep the golf course in the hands of the people of Middlesbrough (Their council) is that all future options would still be on the table. Once it's sold the options will never ever be as attractive to the people of Middlesbrough because the council would not benefit from the extra millions, and I suspect many tens of millions, the rich private company would be the benefactors.
Cardiffdaffs
Well-known member
I saw the Tory MP for Colne Valley having a sly dig at Dewsbury council for having to sell off assets in PMQT yesterday as its a Labour council and that the "levelling up" money from the Government was going to get them out of the sh1t - even though it was the Government who starved them of cash in the first place.
RedAsABeetroot
Well-known member
Billingham GC between Billingham and A19 - foxes, rabbits, deer, weasels plus lots of birds. Can't see that's a disaster compared to concrete driveways and houses.
I can't imagine the massively increasing congestion is good for pollution. There are already too many houses in south Middlesbrough for the road infrastructure and I can't remember a single road scheme in the area in 20 years. The only changes we've had to the road network is a constant lowering of speed limits to reflect the fact that the roads are over capacity at peak times. It wouldn't surprise me if the a174 is reduced to 40mph shortly and the a19 between Wolviston and Yarm down to 50mph.
BiggEggo
Well-known member
compared to the biodiversity offered by a housing development?
All the golf courses I play are actively pursuing development that improves the environment and biodiversity, and include management practices that rely less on chemical treatments.