THE COST OF ACCOMMODATION.

One was chatting to a working man this morning who mentioned that he paid £700 rent for his house. Well one had to ask, and his answer was,  that was the rent he paid per month. Naturally one knows not the house, none the less can but  think of another house , situated in a prime position of a Thames side village, the rent of which my late mother as a widow became beneficiary of. At first it’s gross controlled rent was £60pa.exclusive of rates ,being as it was negotiated during the depression of the thirties, and maintained by wartime security of tenure provisions. Apart from that newly built terrace house, there was too free use of a shared maintained four acre garden, along with a private gardens attached to the house, and use of a garage.

When such controlled tenancies were set aside, the prior tenants of the house, had no wish to pay the new gross rent of £300 pa exclusive ,  as prescribed by Chartered Surveyors, (without use of the four acres) they  left the property. Thus it was that in the nineteen  sixties the house was sold for in the region of £5000 Leasehold, with a thirty shilling a year ground rent. However of a sudden by order of the Government’s new legislation, the freehold had next to be sold to the tenant for £15.plus Lawyer’s and Valuer’s costs. One has always thought this legislation bordered on legislative dishonesty, but it was occasioned on account of  the hoard of Victorian leasehold tenancies then about to expire in areas such as Brighton. ‘Landlords’ lost out , whilst most tenants were financially advantaged, especially those who had recently bought cheaply, the tail ends of tenancies about to fall in. If that was bad luck for the original property owners, what  of the good fortune of the lady who’d purchased the freehold of ‘our’ house. Well her children presently offer  ‘our’ end of  terrace house and two garages which I provided, and garden etc. for sale at a little under a million pounds freehold, The house has a recently converted loft space with Velux windows and a newly built lobby area to the back door. I hope their sale is successful, none the less feel that ‘we’ the original builders lost out on father’s expectations.

Ones own sob story apart, one feels that Governments, are little short of incompetent in their dealings. Maybe rent controls should be brought back. I know that I couldn’t afford to pay £700 a month to rent a house, anymore than one can afford to pay well over £2000 a year for the rates of our current rurally located, on a side road property. Here all our neighbours except two, get ‘discounts’ either for single occupancy, or because their now modernised houses are still assessed at their original valuations. I appreciate the money councils spend has to come from somewhere, but very much object to part financing the discounts available to others, who are better able than I to finance their own living costs, and one can but wonder why currently now grander properties are newly assessed to pay lower rates than we do. One cant do anything about that until one sells our house. It really is time for the re-valuations of property, promised but defaulted upon by government.

I don’t suppose that only the big house opposite and our good selves solely pay for the discounts of others, and to be fair when either my wife or I kick the bucket, our house too will be discounted by 10% ( over £200 pa.) having but a single person occupancy. Then of course the rest of you can make up the deficit when paying your rates.

TISBURY PARISH COUNCIL.

Living as one does two miles off central Tisbury, one wonders why our part co-opted Tisbury Parish Council  think it appropriate to scatter our money around as they seem to, and heaven only knows which Council will be paying the running costs of the old Nadder Middle School premises.

Both County and Parish Councils, are due elections soon, and one notes that some long serving Parish Councillors may resign their elected office. Possibly the idea is that once again others be co-opted to fill such vacancies. Personally I’d rather now let any vacancies remain unfilled until after forthcoming elections, because already too many of the Parish Councillors hold their office, by co-option, some having inherited the office of former ‘co-optees.’

DOWN BY THE STATION.

Something else one is concerned about is the current proposal to spend was it five thousand pounds a year to hire an area of ground below the railway station, which area would be used for car parking, presumably after rate payers have paid a small fortune to surface the area .I do not see any such need, so believe Tisbury Parishioners , should again be consulted, before Parish Councillors are minded to so spend our money even on a leasehold basis. Alternatively maybe the Tisbury Business Association might wish  to hire the land itself. ?

Some years ago the Parish’s opinion was against the idea of buying that piece of land opposite the station. Our opinions were clearly expressed in the questionnaire all houses in Tisbury were invited to complete .After its delivery to each house  by a voluntary group (Here I would declare my interest in the questionnaire, for I was among the original volunteers to formulate some of the questions, then distribute, and collect the answers  in their anonymous impressive plain brown envelopes ) These once collected were handed in , to be processed by a sub committee. However having not been invited to assess the completed questionnaires, my work done I left the committee to their deliberations. When the opinions expressed in the questionnaire were published, one of the things it advised was that Tisbury had no wish to BUY this car park area opposite the station. So it concerns me now to hear that some are minded that Tisbury pays the owner of the land £5,000 a year to RENT it.

 Did one read that the ground is the property of a Mr. Johnson and if so is this the same man who once sold me  2 Bennett Mews, leasehold, for the occupation of my late mother  A house which later I sold on.? J.B.P.

6th January 2017.