Council urged to tackle city's housing crisis (From Oxford Mail)
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting OXFORD NEWS to 80360 or email us
Council urged to tackle city's housing crisis
7:07pm Thursday 18th March 2010 in
A LEADING homelessness charity yesterday told Oxford City Council it was not doing enough to solve the lack of affordable housing in the area.
The city council is only delivering 12 per cent of the social rented housing or low cost home ownership schemes for families, according to a report by Shelter.
Shelter’s Housing League Table ranks the city council 226th out of 323 in terms of its affordable housing provision.
Shelter’s chief executive Campbell Robb said: “With 3,790 households on the housing waiting list in Oxford, the council must work far harder to ensure more desperately needed affordable homes are provided, if it ever hopes to meet the housing needs of the local population.
“Independent experts commissioned by the council say 1,757 new affordable homes need to be built each year in Oxford, but an average of only 210 have been delivered in the last year, leaving a shortfall of 1,547 homes per year.
“The recession has created a difficult climate for house building, but these figures clearly show that Oxford council is struggling to provide enough affordable homes for those who need them.”
Mother-of-six Kerry Ashley-Morgan, 39, is one of many who has struggled with the problem.
She was on the council’s waiting list for about 10 years before she could swap her three-bedroomed house in Cuddeson Way, Blackbird Leys, for a four-bedroomed house on the estate, for her family of seven.
She said: “In October, we swapped a housing association property for a city council home.
“But I had to set up the swap myself after visiting the HomeSwapper website and if I hadn’t taken the initiative I’m sure we would still be on the waiting list.
“Thankfully, the city council was more than happy to agree to the swap going ahead.”
Shelter’s research found that 216 councils, including Oxford, are delivering less than half the number of homes they have identified as needed.
Vale of White Horse District Council was ranked 170th out of 323 councils in England, South Oxfordshire District Council was 169th, Cherwell 148th, and West Oxfordshire 86th.
Comments(22)
Pierre My
says...
9:32pm Thu 18 Mar 10
jockox3
says...
12:53am Fri 19 Mar 10
Lord Palmerston
says...
7:29am Fri 19 Mar 10
LadyPenelope
says...
8:02am Fri 19 Mar 10
You should only have 6 children if you can afford it, and having more housing shouldn't give you the right to demand a bigger house; social housing should cater for those with up to two children, and if you want more, you earn enough to afford them.
Pierre My
says...
10:56am Fri 19 Mar 10
LadyPenelope wrote:It is up to her if she wants to have a large family, not for you to judge. Just because you were lucky enough to marry a rich man, and he could afford to pay for you to have a massive brood does not give you the right to judge others. If your policy came into force Oxford would be full of henry and henrietas, with very few sharon and darrens. Just whom then will you find to employ as your servents
I have friends who are privately renting a 2 bed flat, thus can only AFFORD to have one child. You should only have 6 children if you can afford it, and having more housing shouldn't give you the right to demand a bigger house; social housing should cater for those with up to two children, and if you want more, you earn enough to afford them.
LadyPenelope
says...
11:36am Fri 19 Mar 10
I have no children, and all my money is my own hard earned cash, and I would certainly never marry for money!
If my policy came into force, there would be an equal number of henry and hettys, and sharon and darren's... I would also prioritise housing for those families who work long hours earning the minimum wage and struggle with private rents. I still think that you should only have more than 2 children if you can afford it, as do many others.
Pierre My
says...
11:53am Fri 19 Mar 10
LadyPenelope wrote:Then you and the others are wrong. End of
Pierre, you're obviously not very intelligent given you make sure vast (and wrong) assumptions about people! I have no children, and all my money is my own hard earned cash, and I would certainly never marry for money! If my policy came into force, there would be an equal number of henry and hettys, and sharon and darren's... I would also prioritise housing for those families who work long hours earning the minimum wage and struggle with private rents. I still think that you should only have more than 2 children if you can afford it, as do many others.
jockox3
says...
12:59pm Fri 19 Mar 10
But it is certainly nobody's right to inflict further costs they cannot cover of what amounts to a life-style choice on the rest of us. I'm sure that is not what Beveridge envisaged when drawing up the principles of the modern welfare state.
Andrew:Oxford
says...
3:06pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Lord Palmerston
says...
4:09pm Fri 19 Mar 10
If she pays for her own board and keep Pierre my little stirring chum, you're right, but of course she wants me and other working people to pay, so, whilst you've achieved your intention of a wind-up, taken seriously your thoughts are complete nonsense.As you very well know dolees are far too posh to work; it's so much more dignified to draw-hence no servants (or anything else much) from the most fecund stratum of society.
Stevex
says...
8:20pm Fri 19 Mar 10
I'm sick to death of the hypocrisy of us all being forced to save the environment by being green (can't do this, don't do that) and then there is nothing said about the environmental impact of large families. The government can stuff their righteous attitude about don't use cars and their stupid energy saving lightbulbs (which cost lots more and don't last any longer) and other crap. Why should I bother when nothing is done to stop the impact of large families.
pater mcvey
says...
8:28pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Lord Palmerston wrote:The bit you are missing M'Lud is that the benefits she (and others) receive, are not enough to live a good lifestyle on, so you will find that a lot of them DO work, but only the type of work that gives them plenty dickies for the old sky rocket.
"It is up to her if she wants to have a large family, not for you to judge. " If she pays for her own board and keep Pierre my little stirring chum, you're right, but of course she wants me and other working people to pay, so, whilst you've achieved your intention of a wind-up, taken seriously your thoughts are complete nonsense.As you very well know dolees are far too posh to work; it's so much more dignified to draw-hence no servants (or anything else much) from the most fecund stratum of society.
pater mcvey
says...
8:41pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Stevex wrote:In answer to your question at the end of your post. Don't bother because anything that you save will be spent on wasters, both here and in westminster.
The printed edition also mentions a family with 7 children. I'm sick to death of the hypocrisy of us all being forced to save the environment by being green (can't do this, don't do that) and then there is nothing said about the environmental impact of large families. The government can stuff their righteous attitude about don't use cars and their stupid energy saving lightbulbs (which cost lots more and don't last any longer) and other crap. Why should I bother when nothing is done to stop the impact of large families.
cj65
says...
9:21pm Fri 19 Mar 10
And before anyone makes stupid assumptions like they have about Lady Penelope, I too do not have any children, because I am not in a financial situation to bring another person into the world, let alone seven. I work really hard, as does my partner, and we have saved hard, and are finally in the process of buying our own house. No one has ever said that life is fair. In an ideal world everyone could have what they want, 3 kids, 7 kids, 12 kids even! But life is not like that, because in the real world, most people are financially unable to have everything they want! If I had been born into money, or won the lottery, I would have children by now, I love children, and I would probably have a lovely five bedroom house in the country with a pool, and 6 dogs. But I wasn't, so instead I work hard and pay for what I have. I can't help but think that if a significant proportion of my salary wasn't going towards helping people who don't help themselves. Why do I have to be morally righteous and save my money and look after myself, yet STILL help to finance people like this?! I wish there was a box you could tick on your payslip to decide where your tax went....because mine most certainly would NOT go here.
jockox3
says...
9:43pm Fri 19 Mar 10
pater mcvey
says...
10:22pm Fri 19 Mar 10
cj65 wrote:Cj. When you think about the £Billions that was spent propping up the banks (and the MDs etc are still taking £million + bonuses) and the war on "terror". The few quid that these people get pales into insignificance. The bank of Scotland has taken more of our money in one week, than all of the benefit scroungers of Oxford, and probably the South of England will in a lifetime.
They would save some money if their kids didn't have a TV in their bedroom... what a ridiculous idea for a room of under 7's. Fill the room with books and I would find myself much more open to the idea of my hard earned income tax going towards economically draining families such as these. At least give the impression that you are giving your children the right educational tools to get them out of this self perpetuating cycle of financial dependancy on the state. And before anyone makes stupid assumptions like they have about Lady Penelope, I too do not have any children, because I am not in a financial situation to bring another person into the world, let alone seven. I work really hard, as does my partner, and we have saved hard, and are finally in the process of buying our own house. No one has ever said that life is fair. In an ideal world everyone could have what they want, 3 kids, 7 kids, 12 kids even! But life is not like that, because in the real world, most people are financially unable to have everything they want! If I had been born into money, or won the lottery, I would have children by now, I love children, and I would probably have a lovely five bedroom house in the country with a pool, and 6 dogs. But I wasn't, so instead I work hard and pay for what I have. I can't help but think that if a significant proportion of my salary wasn't going towards helping people who don't help themselves. Why do I have to be morally righteous and save my money and look after myself, yet STILL help to finance people like this?! I wish there was a box you could tick on your payslip to decide where your tax went....because mine most certainly would NOT go here.
jockox3
says...
10:26pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Just shows how utterly bonkers the notion of government is :)
"by the people, for the people..." Lincoln lied!
cj65
says...
11:20pm Fri 19 Mar 10
What it boils down to is basic common sense. While I understand that it is a basic human right to be allowed children, and therefore do not begrudge people who seek help with perhaps one or two children, any more than this is not necessary, and unless you are financially able to support them comfortably, without relying on the help of the taxpayer, then it is not fair on either the child or the country.
I am watching, like many this evening, Sport Relief, and I find it very hard to have sympathy with people in this country who get themselves into situations such as these and moan about them. One man on Sport Relief tonight lost his 24 year old wife and unborn child to malaria, his whole family gone in a heartbeat. Another woman claimed that she had lost 20 family members to HIV. Neither of these people uttered a single word of complaint, or made a sign that they thought life was unfair. THOSE things are tragedy, and are stories worth reporting on, THOSE are people who deserve our money, NOT someone who willingly gives birth to seven children and then expects everyone else to pick up the bill, and then complains when they aren't given a big enough house, or all the other things which people in similar situations seem to manage to complain about. This country is one of the richest in the world, and offers the absolute best opportunities of anywhere else. I cannot fathom how people can live here and expect sympathy for anything so self inflicted.
Parveez
says...
2:05pm Sat 20 Mar 10
angelox99
says...
2:52pm Sun 21 Mar 10
She was on the council’s waiting list for about 10 years before she could swap her three-bedroomed house in Cuddeson Way, Blackbird Leys, for a four-bedroomed house on the estate, for her family of seven.
I have no sympathy for people that create large families and then expect goverment providers to fund them!. If she had wished to have such a large family then she should of made sure that she was able to fund this!.
I really disagree with her complaining and backing up what really is a a bombardment against the council who in my view have no obligation to house her at all!! Where is her husband in all this??.
Maybe i should knock out a few babies and i might be better off also!!
yummymummy10
says...
10:25pm Mon 22 Mar 10
More Oxford stories
Kerry Ashley-Morgan and her children, pictured before swapping homes
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Grumpy09 says...
7:16pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Could she not have bought a 4 bedroomed house and let some needy smaller family fully appreciate the 3 bedroom house that she didn't like or want??