Burnley worst in UK for empty properties

This Is Lancashire: Three other East Lancashire boroughs featured in the top 10, with Hyndburn third, Blackburn with Darwen fourth and Rossendale eighth. Three other East Lancashire boroughs featured in the top 10, with Hyndburn third, Blackburn with Darwen fourth and Rossendale eighth.

BURNLEY has the largest proportion of empty homes in the country, new figures have revealed.

The statistics from the Empty Homes Agency paint a shocking picture of abandoned property in East Lancashire, placing Pendle second in the national table for empty and boarded-up homes in 2013.

Three other East Lancashire boroughs featured in the top 10, with Hyndburn third, Blackburn with Darwen fourth and Rossendale eighth.

The loss of Government cash for the Elevate scheme in 2010, which has left whole streets awaiting demolition, has been blamed by some for the figures.

The project, which sought to bulldoze and rebuild empty properties, was scrapped by the Coalition Government after allegations it failed to tackle the root causes of the problem.

Coun Mark Townsend, leader of Burnley Council, said: “The loss of the Elevate funding has left us in limbo. We have got blocks of empty homes that are boarded up that were earmarked for demolition under that scheme that we never got the chance to start work on.

“We will be lobbying for Government assistance with empty homes. If there is no money to demolish them then we want to bring them back into use.

“We have to hope the taps of funding will be turned back on to allow us to complete some of the work that was started under Elevate.”

When axed in 2010, Elevate had seen £317m spent on 7,500 homes in East Lancashire.

At its height in 2008, Burnley was given £14.4m and Pendle £10.6m.

Burnley MP Gordon Birtwistle said nobody wanted to live in old, damp terraced houses anymore.

He said: “Burnley is on the up at the moment, industry is improving and unemployment is down. People want to live in nice, new houses with a front garden and central heating, not 120-year-old terraced houses that have damp.

“With the town doing well it is about creating good, clean, nice houses for people to live in, the type we now see going up around Burnley Wood and Accrington Road.

“This is an old problem. It dates back to when the population of Burnley was 80 to 90,000. It is 20,000 less than that now.

“People now aspire to live in different houses. In Burnley Wood there were a lot of very poor terraced houses, and they were taken down and rebuilt. That’s what the answer is.”

Despite the problem Coun Townsend said Burnley was making ‘great strides’ in tackling this blight through schemes such as the Empty Homes Clusters Programme.

The latest figures show that last year in Burnley 3.33 per cent of all homes were empty for more than six months, while in Pendle it was 3.26 per cent.

In Pendle council leader Joe Cooney and MP Andrew Stephenson said an alternative approach to Elevate’s funding had resulted in properties being brought back into use.

Mr Stephenson said: “The number of empty properties have reduced since the Elevate scheme ended. The approach is now about bringing homes back into use, rather than throwing money at the problem and bulldozing entire neighbourhoods.

“This Government doesn’t believe that throwing money at it will solve the problem, and as Pendle Council has shown these homes can be brought back into use without being demolished.

“We need to make sure there are jobs available and school places for people to move back into these neighbourhoods.

“The Whitefield area in the centre of Nelson has traditionally been a big problem for empty homes, but this summer a new £6million state-of-the-art school will open, and with houses in the area being renovated it will attract families back to Whitefield.

“I am confident progress is being made to tackle empty houses, but it is also clear more still needs to be done.”

Coun Cooney said: “We have taken on a different approach since the loss of the Elevate funding.

“Over the last 12 months we have put contracts out to tender to private companies to renovate empty homes.

“Since 2010 we have reduced the number of empty homes in Pendle by 34 per cent.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:14am Tue 10 Jun 14

Excluded again says...

The insanity of the government's economic and housing policies laid bare.

Nationally there is concern that the fragile economic recovery will be put at risk by a housing bubble created by the government pumping money into supporting expensive mortgages in the south.

Why are house prices so expensive in the south? Because there aren't enough houses? But there are more houses in the country than people who need housing. Why don't people move to where these empty homes are? Because there are no jobs in those areas? Why are there no jobs in those areas? Because government has slashed public spending in the north by over 30% whilst preserving levels of public spending in the south.

A problem entirely of the government's own making through its twin policies of concentrating all its spending in the south and using taxpayers' money to subsidise house prices in the south.
The insanity of the government's economic and housing policies laid bare. Nationally there is concern that the fragile economic recovery will be put at risk by a housing bubble created by the government pumping money into supporting expensive mortgages in the south. Why are house prices so expensive in the south? Because there aren't enough houses? But there are more houses in the country than people who need housing. Why don't people move to where these empty homes are? Because there are no jobs in those areas? Why are there no jobs in those areas? Because government has slashed public spending in the north by over 30% whilst preserving levels of public spending in the south. A problem entirely of the government's own making through its twin policies of concentrating all its spending in the south and using taxpayers' money to subsidise house prices in the south. Excluded again
  • Score: 53

9:42am Tue 10 Jun 14

Real Ale Up North says...

Excluded again wrote:
The insanity of the government's economic and housing policies laid bare.

Nationally there is concern that the fragile economic recovery will be put at risk by a housing bubble created by the government pumping money into supporting expensive mortgages in the south.

Why are house prices so expensive in the south? Because there aren't enough houses? But there are more houses in the country than people who need housing. Why don't people move to where these empty homes are? Because there are no jobs in those areas? Why are there no jobs in those areas? Because government has slashed public spending in the north by over 30% whilst preserving levels of public spending in the south.

A problem entirely of the government's own making through its twin policies of concentrating all its spending in the south and using taxpayers' money to subsidise house prices in the south.
Excellent post - well said. Concur with you 100%. Southern bias and favouritism will always prevail .
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: The insanity of the government's economic and housing policies laid bare. Nationally there is concern that the fragile economic recovery will be put at risk by a housing bubble created by the government pumping money into supporting expensive mortgages in the south. Why are house prices so expensive in the south? Because there aren't enough houses? But there are more houses in the country than people who need housing. Why don't people move to where these empty homes are? Because there are no jobs in those areas? Why are there no jobs in those areas? Because government has slashed public spending in the north by over 30% whilst preserving levels of public spending in the south. A problem entirely of the government's own making through its twin policies of concentrating all its spending in the south and using taxpayers' money to subsidise house prices in the south.[/p][/quote]Excellent post - well said. Concur with you 100%. Southern bias and favouritism will always prevail . Real Ale Up North
  • Score: 27

10:20am Tue 10 Jun 14

Izanears says...

Nelson must be close second then.
Nelson must be close second then. Izanears
  • Score: 9

10:22am Tue 10 Jun 14

TONY WALES says...

How can the MP say that unemployment is decreasing?

What he means it is in the south of England, whilst in this area more people are being subjected to the bully boy tactics at the Jobcentre and forced to apply for part-time, low paid jobs. How can they apply for 20 jobs a week as directed?
They send CV's off for the jobs and don't receive any replies, but up to 100 to 200 people are after the same job
When they don't get a job they remove the JSA, and it shows up as them not being unemployed, and the figures look better.
So maybe the MP looks upon London as being a true picture as regards the wealth of this country, but look around the area and people are finding it hard to live.
Still, after the next election his party will be able to hold their annual conference in a telephone box, and save money..............
How can the MP say that unemployment is decreasing? What he means it is in the south of England, whilst in this area more people are being subjected to the bully boy tactics at the Jobcentre and forced to apply for part-time, low paid jobs. How can they apply for 20 jobs a week as directed? They send CV's off for the jobs and don't receive any replies, but up to 100 to 200 people are after the same job When they don't get a job they remove the JSA, and it shows up as them not being unemployed, and the figures look better. So maybe the MP looks upon London as being a true picture as regards the wealth of this country, but look around the area and people are finding it hard to live. Still, after the next election his party will be able to hold their annual conference in a telephone box, and save money.............. TONY WALES
  • Score: 26

10:44am Tue 10 Jun 14

Steven Seagull says...

Stone Island: wrote:
I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.
So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?
[quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.[/p][/quote]So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then? Steven Seagull
  • Score: 8

11:16am Tue 10 Jun 14

hasslem hasslem says...

Excluded again wrote:
The insanity of the government's economic and housing policies laid bare.

Nationally there is concern that the fragile economic recovery will be put at risk by a housing bubble created by the government pumping money into supporting expensive mortgages in the south.

Why are house prices so expensive in the south? Because there aren't enough houses? But there are more houses in the country than people who need housing. Why don't people move to where these empty homes are? Because there are no jobs in those areas? Why are there no jobs in those areas? Because government has slashed public spending in the north by over 30% whilst preserving levels of public spending in the south.

A problem entirely of the government's own making through its twin policies of concentrating all its spending in the south and using taxpayers' money to subsidise house prices in the south.
you are a knob if you think that this has happened in the last four years - what about the 13 years of blair and brown - did north/south divide not exist then.

pour some coffee into yourself - cos you are a mug, if your think this is solely down to coalition govt
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: The insanity of the government's economic and housing policies laid bare. Nationally there is concern that the fragile economic recovery will be put at risk by a housing bubble created by the government pumping money into supporting expensive mortgages in the south. Why are house prices so expensive in the south? Because there aren't enough houses? But there are more houses in the country than people who need housing. Why don't people move to where these empty homes are? Because there are no jobs in those areas? Why are there no jobs in those areas? Because government has slashed public spending in the north by over 30% whilst preserving levels of public spending in the south. A problem entirely of the government's own making through its twin policies of concentrating all its spending in the south and using taxpayers' money to subsidise house prices in the south.[/p][/quote]you are a knob if you think that this has happened in the last four years - what about the 13 years of blair and brown - did north/south divide not exist then. pour some coffee into yourself - cos you are a mug, if your think this is solely down to coalition govt hasslem hasslem
  • Score: 4

11:24am Tue 10 Jun 14

Old age pensioner says...

Stone Island: wrote:
I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.
It's nearly as bad as Blackburn and I was from Blackburn!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.[/p][/quote]It's nearly as bad as Blackburn and I was from Blackburn!!!! Old age pensioner
  • Score: 13

12:05pm Tue 10 Jun 14

DaveBurnley says...

hasslem hasslem wrote:
Excluded again wrote:
The insanity of the government's economic and housing policies laid bare.

Nationally there is concern that the fragile economic recovery will be put at risk by a housing bubble created by the government pumping money into supporting expensive mortgages in the south.

Why are house prices so expensive in the south? Because there aren't enough houses? But there are more houses in the country than people who need housing. Why don't people move to where these empty homes are? Because there are no jobs in those areas? Why are there no jobs in those areas? Because government has slashed public spending in the north by over 30% whilst preserving levels of public spending in the south.

A problem entirely of the government's own making through its twin policies of concentrating all its spending in the south and using taxpayers' money to subsidise house prices in the south.
you are a knob if you think that this has happened in the last four years - what about the 13 years of blair and brown - did north/south divide not exist then.

pour some coffee into yourself - cos you are a mug, if your think this is solely down to coalition govt
You've both made valid points, it's true to say that this isn't a recent development, going back many years. However it is also true to say that this government has done little or nothing to improve the situation. I can't see any of our potential governments making any real efforts in this area to reverse the decades of neglect.
[quote][p][bold]hasslem hasslem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: The insanity of the government's economic and housing policies laid bare. Nationally there is concern that the fragile economic recovery will be put at risk by a housing bubble created by the government pumping money into supporting expensive mortgages in the south. Why are house prices so expensive in the south? Because there aren't enough houses? But there are more houses in the country than people who need housing. Why don't people move to where these empty homes are? Because there are no jobs in those areas? Why are there no jobs in those areas? Because government has slashed public spending in the north by over 30% whilst preserving levels of public spending in the south. A problem entirely of the government's own making through its twin policies of concentrating all its spending in the south and using taxpayers' money to subsidise house prices in the south.[/p][/quote]you are a knob if you think that this has happened in the last four years - what about the 13 years of blair and brown - did north/south divide not exist then. pour some coffee into yourself - cos you are a mug, if your think this is solely down to coalition govt[/p][/quote]You've both made valid points, it's true to say that this isn't a recent development, going back many years. However it is also true to say that this government has done little or nothing to improve the situation. I can't see any of our potential governments making any real efforts in this area to reverse the decades of neglect. DaveBurnley
  • Score: 18

12:43pm Tue 10 Jun 14

tonygreaves says...

I am sorry that the MP Andrew Stephenson seems quite to ignorant about the Housing Market Renewal programme in Pendle and the disastrous results of the sudden ending of the funding when a lot of schemes were half way through. Struggling with the Elevate bureaucracy under Labour was bad enough. But just cutting the funding and stopping the programmes overnight was lunacy.

Tony Greaves
I am sorry that the MP Andrew Stephenson seems quite to ignorant about the Housing Market Renewal programme in Pendle and the disastrous results of the sudden ending of the funding when a lot of schemes were half way through. Struggling with the Elevate bureaucracy under Labour was bad enough. But just cutting the funding and stopping the programmes overnight was lunacy. Tony Greaves tonygreaves
  • Score: 8

12:50pm Tue 10 Jun 14

slants says...

The government and the labour council decided to knock down Daneshouse and Burnley wood and try and integrate these communities because that was where the majority of the convicted rioters came from .The result was the wood moved to the Fulledge and Daneshouse moved across Colne rd. The state of the houses was irrelevant they seemed to do it ad hoc with brand new renovated houses knocked down after receiving grants weeks before from the council.My friend had just moved into an house that had had a brand new kitchen ,central heating etc etc it was a cracking house but the council 4 years after the riots decided that it would have too go and be replaced with a grassbank for wild-flower ????he received less than market value and is now living in one of these house that birtie mentions damp and cold .Burnley's MP and councillors are all thieves and incompetents.
They devised that Daneshouse would be part of Gawthorpe for school purposes but that didn't happen either The council elevate people where buying new cars ,fancy offices.expenses etc they thought the money was endless.Then Birtwistle got elected and he decided that the people they were throwing out were getting too much and slashed the payments, so the people didn't get the proper market value;thereby throwing pensioners into renting and homelessness because they couldn't get another mortgage.
The government and the labour council decided to knock down Daneshouse and Burnley wood and try and integrate these communities because that was where the majority of the convicted rioters came from .The result was the wood moved to the Fulledge and Daneshouse moved across Colne rd. The state of the houses was irrelevant they seemed to do it ad hoc with brand new renovated houses knocked down after receiving grants weeks before from the council.My friend had just moved into an house that had had a brand new kitchen ,central heating etc etc it was a cracking house but the council 4 years after the riots decided that it would have too go and be replaced with a grassbank for wild-flower ????he received less than market value and is now living in one of these house that birtie mentions damp and cold .Burnley's MP and councillors are all thieves and incompetents. They devised that Daneshouse would be part of Gawthorpe for school purposes but that didn't happen either The council elevate people where buying new cars ,fancy offices.expenses etc they thought the money was endless.Then Birtwistle got elected and he decided that the people they were throwing out were getting too much and slashed the payments, so the people didn't get the proper market value;thereby throwing pensioners into renting and homelessness because they couldn't get another mortgage. slants
  • Score: -10

12:53pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Stone Island: says...

Steven Seagull wrote:
Stone Island: wrote:
I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.
So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?
Daneshouse? I believe that's one of the nicest areas of town, where houses change hands for as much as 10k. I might sell my car and buy a couple.
[quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.[/p][/quote]So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?[/p][/quote]Daneshouse? I believe that's one of the nicest areas of town, where houses change hands for as much as 10k. I might sell my car and buy a couple. Stone Island:
  • Score: 7

1:33pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Markus Spartacus says...

I have asked this question before - why should government, local or otherwise spend taxpayer's money renovating and improving privately owned properties? If you can afford to buy a house then you can afford to keep it in a habitable condition. If you let it go to rack and ruin, then you should have a choice. Live in the mess you have created or deal with the mess, improve and put right at your expense.
I have asked this question before - why should government, local or otherwise spend taxpayer's money renovating and improving privately owned properties? If you can afford to buy a house then you can afford to keep it in a habitable condition. If you let it go to rack and ruin, then you should have a choice. Live in the mess you have created or deal with the mess, improve and put right at your expense. Markus Spartacus
  • Score: 17

1:57pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Stone Island: says...

Markus Spartacus wrote:
I have asked this question before - why should government, local or otherwise spend taxpayer's money renovating and improving privately owned properties? If you can afford to buy a house then you can afford to keep it in a habitable condition. If you let it go to rack and ruin, then you should have a choice. Live in the mess you have created or deal with the mess, improve and put right at your expense.
Totally agree.
[quote][p][bold]Markus Spartacus[/bold] wrote: I have asked this question before - why should government, local or otherwise spend taxpayer's money renovating and improving privately owned properties? If you can afford to buy a house then you can afford to keep it in a habitable condition. If you let it go to rack and ruin, then you should have a choice. Live in the mess you have created or deal with the mess, improve and put right at your expense.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Stone Island:
  • Score: 6

4:14pm Tue 10 Jun 14

ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123 says...

Stephenson and Cooney are a pair of Liars the only work being done is round Nelson Town Centre,where Barnfields are making money hand over fist renovating houses that then go up for sale.
Stephenson and Cooney are a pair of Liars the only work being done is round Nelson Town Centre,where Barnfields are making money hand over fist renovating houses that then go up for sale. ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123
  • Score: 7

4:14pm Tue 10 Jun 14

ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123 says...

Stephenson and Cooney are a pair of Liars the only work being done is round Nelson Town Centre,where Barnfields are making money hand over fist renovating houses that then go up for sale.
Stephenson and Cooney are a pair of Liars the only work being done is round Nelson Town Centre,where Barnfields are making money hand over fist renovating houses that then go up for sale. ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123
  • Score: 5

4:22pm Tue 10 Jun 14

ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123 says...

tonygreaves wrote:
I am sorry that the MP Andrew Stephenson seems quite to ignorant about the Housing Market Renewal programme in Pendle and the disastrous results of the sudden ending of the funding when a lot of schemes were half way through. Struggling with the Elevate bureaucracy under Labour was bad enough. But just cutting the funding and stopping the programmes overnight was lunacy.

Tony Greaves
what renewal programme in Pendle??? or are you talking about that pathetic programme that was started about 20 years ago when if you worked you paid about 90% of the cost if you did.nt work you got it done for nothing so you had terraces with 40% renovated and the other 60% not touched so it made no difference to the area they still looked like slums
[quote][p][bold]tonygreaves[/bold] wrote: I am sorry that the MP Andrew Stephenson seems quite to ignorant about the Housing Market Renewal programme in Pendle and the disastrous results of the sudden ending of the funding when a lot of schemes were half way through. Struggling with the Elevate bureaucracy under Labour was bad enough. But just cutting the funding and stopping the programmes overnight was lunacy. Tony Greaves[/p][/quote]what renewal programme in Pendle??? or are you talking about that pathetic programme that was started about 20 years ago when if you worked you paid about 90% of the cost if you did.nt work you got it done for nothing so you had terraces with 40% renovated and the other 60% not touched so it made no difference to the area they still looked like slums ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123
  • Score: 8

4:48pm Tue 10 Jun 14

jenkinsroy says...

In Pendle council leader Joe Cooney and MP Andrew Stephenson said an alternative approach to Elevated funding had resulted in properties being brought back into use.
YES BUT HOW IS GETTING THE MONEY HERE SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT
You are asking private companies to buy them of you refurbish them
and rent them back to your local people YES?
So when they have to rent them at high costs to them they get rent
help from the government YES?
NOW I SEE what is going on here you put them in private housing
you do not need to build NEW homes so the land can be used for
selling of to the business sector YES MAN or man is there a lot of
money to be had here when you give them planning permission
to build whatever they will is this SO OR NOT?
IF I WAS YOU LOT IN BURNLEY I WOULD ASK YOUR M.P.
IF THIS IS SO?
This is ONLY my opinion what I think is going on here so you votes
get together and demand they give you the true facts about the
empty home and why they cannot refurbish them their self or why
they will not you RESIDENTS MUST ACT ON THIS NOW BEFORE
THEY START TO SELL OF YOUR HOMES YOU HOW LIVE THERE HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE IN A COUNCIL RUN HOME AND BE SAFE AND COVERED BY THE LAW THIS GOVERNMENT HAS BROUGHT IN
YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE SAME LAW IN PRIVATE HOME .
YOU GET NO REPAIR DONE CAN BE KICK OUT AT ANY TIME
IF THEY WISH TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND YOUR RENT GOES
UP EVERY 6 MONTH.
In Pendle council leader Joe Cooney and MP Andrew Stephenson said an alternative approach to Elevated funding had resulted in properties being brought back into use. YES BUT HOW IS GETTING THE MONEY HERE SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT You are asking private companies to buy them of you refurbish them and rent them back to your local people YES? So when they have to rent them at high costs to them they get rent help from the government YES? NOW I SEE what is going on here you put them in private housing you do not need to build NEW homes so the land can be used for selling of to the business sector YES MAN or man is there a lot of money to be had here when you give them planning permission to build whatever they will is this SO OR NOT? IF I WAS YOU LOT IN BURNLEY I WOULD ASK YOUR M.P. IF THIS IS SO? This is ONLY my opinion what I think is going on here so you votes get together and demand they give you the true facts about the empty home and why they cannot refurbish them their self or why they will not you RESIDENTS MUST ACT ON THIS NOW BEFORE THEY START TO SELL OF YOUR HOMES YOU HOW LIVE THERE HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE IN A COUNCIL RUN HOME AND BE SAFE AND COVERED BY THE LAW THIS GOVERNMENT HAS BROUGHT IN YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE SAME LAW IN PRIVATE HOME . YOU GET NO REPAIR DONE CAN BE KICK OUT AT ANY TIME IF THEY WISH TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND YOUR RENT GOES UP EVERY 6 MONTH. jenkinsroy
  • Score: 3

5:26pm Tue 10 Jun 14

noddy57 says...

must agree with the first post` its a national disgrace that the south continues to attract all the investments while the poorer north are left with so little it fails to register as an amount,but what,s new ?it has always been like that and while the Tories are in no 10 it will always be so.
must agree with the first post` its a national disgrace that the south continues to attract all the investments while the poorer north are left with so little it fails to register as an amount,but what,s new ?it has always been like that and while the Tories are in no 10 it will always be so. noddy57
  • Score: -4

6:26pm Tue 10 Jun 14

BURNLEYITE40 says...

YOU FORGOT TO ADD ALSO BEING THE WORSE PLACE TO LIVE IN BRITAIN NVR MIND OWT ELSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU FORGOT TO ADD ALSO BEING THE WORSE PLACE TO LIVE IN BRITAIN NVR MIND OWT ELSE !!!!!!!!!!!!! BURNLEYITE40
  • Score: -6

6:30pm Tue 10 Jun 14

BURNLEYITE40 says...

Stone Island: wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
Stone Island: wrote:
I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.
So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?
Daneshouse? I believe that's one of the nicest areas of town, where houses change hands for as much as 10k. I might sell my car and buy a couple.
YEA WELL UR PROBS ONE THE MAJORITY NOT US MINORITY (THE NGLSI HWHITE PPL ) !!!!!!!!!!! AS WERE NOW THE MINORITY IN BURNLEY ARE THE WHITE PPL AS WERE BEEN DRIVEN OUTOF OUT OWN TOWN.AND TO THINK
STONEYHOLME "USED " TO B THE PLACE TO LIVE IN THE 60S 70S BELIEVE IT OR NOT........U WAS CLASSED AS A SNOB UNTIL........WELL ILL SAY NO MORE......EVEN THO THIS WILL PROBS B DELETED !!!!!! COS THE TRUTH HUIRTS THE L/E/T/
[quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.[/p][/quote]So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?[/p][/quote]Daneshouse? I believe that's one of the nicest areas of town, where houses change hands for as much as 10k. I might sell my car and buy a couple.[/p][/quote]YEA WELL UR PROBS ONE THE MAJORITY NOT US MINORITY (THE NGLSI HWHITE PPL ) !!!!!!!!!!! AS WERE NOW THE MINORITY IN BURNLEY ARE THE WHITE PPL AS WERE BEEN DRIVEN OUTOF OUT OWN TOWN.AND TO THINK STONEYHOLME "USED " TO B THE PLACE TO LIVE IN THE 60S 70S BELIEVE IT OR NOT........U WAS CLASSED AS A SNOB UNTIL........WELL ILL SAY NO MORE......EVEN THO THIS WILL PROBS B DELETED !!!!!! COS THE TRUTH HUIRTS THE L/E/T/ BURNLEYITE40
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Steven Seagull says...

BURNLEYITE40 wrote:
Stone Island: wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
Stone Island: wrote:
I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.
So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?
Daneshouse? I believe that's one of the nicest areas of town, where houses change hands for as much as 10k. I might sell my car and buy a couple.
YEA WELL UR PROBS ONE THE MAJORITY NOT US MINORITY (THE NGLSI HWHITE PPL ) !!!!!!!!!!! AS WERE NOW THE MINORITY IN BURNLEY ARE THE WHITE PPL AS WERE BEEN DRIVEN OUTOF OUT OWN TOWN.AND TO THINK
STONEYHOLME "USED " TO B THE PLACE TO LIVE IN THE 60S 70S BELIEVE IT OR NOT........U WAS CLASSED AS A SNOB UNTIL........WELL ILL SAY NO MORE......EVEN THO THIS WILL PROBS B DELETED !!!!!! COS THE TRUTH HUIRTS THE L/E/T/
MY HEAD HURTS........oh sorry, my head hurts having just read this post.
[quote][p][bold]BURNLEYITE40[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.[/p][/quote]So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?[/p][/quote]Daneshouse? I believe that's one of the nicest areas of town, where houses change hands for as much as 10k. I might sell my car and buy a couple.[/p][/quote]YEA WELL UR PROBS ONE THE MAJORITY NOT US MINORITY (THE NGLSI HWHITE PPL ) !!!!!!!!!!! AS WERE NOW THE MINORITY IN BURNLEY ARE THE WHITE PPL AS WERE BEEN DRIVEN OUTOF OUT OWN TOWN.AND TO THINK STONEYHOLME "USED " TO B THE PLACE TO LIVE IN THE 60S 70S BELIEVE IT OR NOT........U WAS CLASSED AS A SNOB UNTIL........WELL ILL SAY NO MORE......EVEN THO THIS WILL PROBS B DELETED !!!!!! COS THE TRUTH HUIRTS THE L/E/T/[/p][/quote]MY HEAD HURTS........oh sorry, my head hurts having just read this post. Steven Seagull
  • Score: -4

7:09pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Stone Island: says...

BURNLEYITE40 wrote:
Stone Island: wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
Stone Island: wrote:
I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.
So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?
Daneshouse? I believe that's one of the nicest areas of town, where houses change hands for as much as 10k. I might sell my car and buy a couple.
YEA WELL UR PROBS ONE THE MAJORITY NOT US MINORITY (THE NGLSI HWHITE PPL ) !!!!!!!!!!! AS WERE NOW THE MINORITY IN BURNLEY ARE THE WHITE PPL AS WERE BEEN DRIVEN OUTOF OUT OWN TOWN.AND TO THINK
STONEYHOLME "USED " TO B THE PLACE TO LIVE IN THE 60S 70S BELIEVE IT OR NOT........U WAS CLASSED AS A SNOB UNTIL........WELL ILL SAY NO MORE......EVEN THO THIS WILL PROBS B DELETED !!!!!! COS THE TRUTH HUIRTS THE L/E/T/
Could we have that again in English please? you simpleton!
[quote][p][bold]BURNLEYITE40[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.[/p][/quote]So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?[/p][/quote]Daneshouse? I believe that's one of the nicest areas of town, where houses change hands for as much as 10k. I might sell my car and buy a couple.[/p][/quote]YEA WELL UR PROBS ONE THE MAJORITY NOT US MINORITY (THE NGLSI HWHITE PPL ) !!!!!!!!!!! AS WERE NOW THE MINORITY IN BURNLEY ARE THE WHITE PPL AS WERE BEEN DRIVEN OUTOF OUT OWN TOWN.AND TO THINK STONEYHOLME "USED " TO B THE PLACE TO LIVE IN THE 60S 70S BELIEVE IT OR NOT........U WAS CLASSED AS A SNOB UNTIL........WELL ILL SAY NO MORE......EVEN THO THIS WILL PROBS B DELETED !!!!!! COS THE TRUTH HUIRTS THE L/E/T/[/p][/quote]Could we have that again in English please? you simpleton! Stone Island:
  • Score: 1

7:51pm Tue 10 Jun 14

TONY WALES says...

Stone Island: wrote:
BURNLEYITE40 wrote:
Stone Island: wrote:
Steven Seagull wrote:
Stone Island: wrote:
I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.
So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?
Daneshouse? I believe that's one of the nicest areas of town, where houses change hands for as much as 10k. I might sell my car and buy a couple.
YEA WELL UR PROBS ONE THE MAJORITY NOT US MINORITY (THE NGLSI HWHITE PPL ) !!!!!!!!!!! AS WERE NOW THE MINORITY IN BURNLEY ARE THE WHITE PPL AS WERE BEEN DRIVEN OUTOF OUT OWN TOWN.AND TO THINK
STONEYHOLME "USED " TO B THE PLACE TO LIVE IN THE 60S 70S BELIEVE IT OR NOT........U WAS CLASSED AS A SNOB UNTIL........WELL ILL SAY NO MORE......EVEN THO THIS WILL PROBS B DELETED !!!!!! COS THE TRUTH HUIRTS THE L/E/T/
Could we have that again in English please? you simpleton!
Have you ever thought of taking your school to court? perhaps you could get some compensation, for the standard of education which you did/did not receive?

Or was your Sat Nav not working on school days?
[quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BURNLEYITE40[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stone Island:[/bold] wrote: I'm not surprised that no-one wants to live there. It's a shat hole.[/p][/quote]So you'll be handing back the keys to your new 4 bedroom dezrez in Dansehouse then?[/p][/quote]Daneshouse? I believe that's one of the nicest areas of town, where houses change hands for as much as 10k. I might sell my car and buy a couple.[/p][/quote]YEA WELL UR PROBS ONE THE MAJORITY NOT US MINORITY (THE NGLSI HWHITE PPL ) !!!!!!!!!!! AS WERE NOW THE MINORITY IN BURNLEY ARE THE WHITE PPL AS WERE BEEN DRIVEN OUTOF OUT OWN TOWN.AND TO THINK STONEYHOLME "USED " TO B THE PLACE TO LIVE IN THE 60S 70S BELIEVE IT OR NOT........U WAS CLASSED AS A SNOB UNTIL........WELL ILL SAY NO MORE......EVEN THO THIS WILL PROBS B DELETED !!!!!! COS THE TRUTH HUIRTS THE L/E/T/[/p][/quote]Could we have that again in English please? you simpleton![/p][/quote]Have you ever thought of taking your school to court? perhaps you could get some compensation, for the standard of education which you did/did not receive? Or was your Sat Nav not working on school days? TONY WALES
  • Score: -1

8:09pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Legal Beagle says...

noddy57 wrote:
must agree with the first post` its a national disgrace that the south continues to attract all the investments while the poorer north are left with so little it fails to register as an amount,but what,s new ?it has always been like that and while the Tories are in no 10 it will always be so.
Unfortunately, the whole attitude displayed by these comments and similar ones on other stories of deprivation in East Lancs explains all too accurately why the deprivation exists.

It is just pathetic to blame the Tories for the lack of investment in the area. The simple fact is that the proportion of people in East Lancs who are under-educated, lacking in skills, poor, ill, and generally an economic burden rather than an asset is far higher than in most other areas of England. That's why there is so little investment.

People in this area are used to living off the state, whether it's through a life on benefits or some non-job in the public sector. Hence all the moaning about money going to support people in the south.

It's complete nonsense. People in London and the south east don't need to wait for some part of the public sector to offer them a nice, cushy number where they can spend half their life off sick and then pick up a fat pension at our expense. There are plenty of good, well-paid jobs in the private sector there, because that's unfortunately where most of the talent and the entrepreneurs and the foreign investment ends up nowadays.

Sadly, this is hardly surprising. If you're a university graduate (and by university I mean a proper university, not some jumped up College of FE) or an American / Indian / Chinese CEO looking to open a new operation in the UK and on day one you visit Guildford or Newbury and on day two you visit Accrington or Nelson it doesn't take Einstein to work out which is most likely to get the vote.

The fact is that large parts of East Lancashire are a dump. Towns like Nelson and Accrington no longer have any real purpose. The reasons they originally came into being - textiles, mining, heavy industry - have long gone, and if it weren't for huge amounts of government subsidy (from both Labour and Tories) they would by now be like Detroit, with weeds growing out of the M65. Yes, there are still plenty of hard-working and entrepreneurial people in the area, but they tend to be self-employed in one man or very small businesses rather than large corporations, so employ very few people.

It's about time the readers of the LET who moan about the south stealing all the jobs realised that like it or not London and the south east keep places like East Lancashire going. If it weren't for the taxes paid by the hated bankers and other people in the City of London the welfare cuts would be twice as bad as they are.
[quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: must agree with the first post` its a national disgrace that the south continues to attract all the investments while the poorer north are left with so little it fails to register as an amount,but what,s new ?it has always been like that and while the Tories are in no 10 it will always be so.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately, the whole attitude displayed by these comments and similar ones on other stories of deprivation in East Lancs explains all too accurately why the deprivation exists. It is just pathetic to blame the Tories for the lack of investment in the area. The simple fact is that the proportion of people in East Lancs who are under-educated, lacking in skills, poor, ill, and generally an economic burden rather than an asset is far higher than in most other areas of England. That's why there is so little investment. People in this area are used to living off the state, whether it's through a life on benefits or some non-job in the public sector. Hence all the moaning about money going to support people in the south. It's complete nonsense. People in London and the south east don't need to wait for some part of the public sector to offer them a nice, cushy number where they can spend half their life off sick and then pick up a fat pension at our expense. There are plenty of good, well-paid jobs in the private sector there, because that's unfortunately where most of the talent and the entrepreneurs and the foreign investment ends up nowadays. Sadly, this is hardly surprising. If you're a university graduate (and by university I mean a proper university, not some jumped up College of FE) or an American / Indian / Chinese CEO looking to open a new operation in the UK and on day one you visit Guildford or Newbury and on day two you visit Accrington or Nelson it doesn't take Einstein to work out which is most likely to get the vote. The fact is that large parts of East Lancashire are a dump. Towns like Nelson and Accrington no longer have any real purpose. The reasons they originally came into being - textiles, mining, heavy industry - have long gone, and if it weren't for huge amounts of government subsidy (from both Labour and Tories) they would by now be like Detroit, with weeds growing out of the M65. Yes, there are still plenty of hard-working and entrepreneurial people in the area, but they tend to be self-employed in one man or very small businesses rather than large corporations, so employ very few people. It's about time the readers of the LET who moan about the south stealing all the jobs realised that like it or not London and the south east keep places like East Lancashire going. If it weren't for the taxes paid by the hated bankers and other people in the City of London the welfare cuts would be twice as bad as they are. Legal Beagle
  • Score: -2

10:53pm Tue 10 Jun 14

noddy57 says...

Legal Beagle wrote:
noddy57 wrote:
must agree with the first post` its a national disgrace that the south continues to attract all the investments while the poorer north are left with so little it fails to register as an amount,but what,s new ?it has always been like that and while the Tories are in no 10 it will always be so.
Unfortunately, the whole attitude displayed by these comments and similar ones on other stories of deprivation in East Lancs explains all too accurately why the deprivation exists.

It is just pathetic to blame the Tories for the lack of investment in the area. The simple fact is that the proportion of people in East Lancs who are under-educated, lacking in skills, poor, ill, and generally an economic burden rather than an asset is far higher than in most other areas of England. That's why there is so little investment.

People in this area are used to living off the state, whether it's through a life on benefits or some non-job in the public sector. Hence all the moaning about money going to support people in the south.

It's complete nonsense. People in London and the south east don't need to wait for some part of the public sector to offer them a nice, cushy number where they can spend half their life off sick and then pick up a fat pension at our expense. There are plenty of good, well-paid jobs in the private sector there, because that's unfortunately where most of the talent and the entrepreneurs and the foreign investment ends up nowadays.

Sadly, this is hardly surprising. If you're a university graduate (and by university I mean a proper university, not some jumped up College of FE) or an American / Indian / Chinese CEO looking to open a new operation in the UK and on day one you visit Guildford or Newbury and on day two you visit Accrington or Nelson it doesn't take Einstein to work out which is most likely to get the vote.

The fact is that large parts of East Lancashire are a dump. Towns like Nelson and Accrington no longer have any real purpose. The reasons they originally came into being - textiles, mining, heavy industry - have long gone, and if it weren't for huge amounts of government subsidy (from both Labour and Tories) they would by now be like Detroit, with weeds growing out of the M65. Yes, there are still plenty of hard-working and entrepreneurial people in the area, but they tend to be self-employed in one man or very small businesses rather than large corporations, so employ very few people.

It's about time the readers of the LET who moan about the south stealing all the jobs realised that like it or not London and the south east keep places like East Lancashire going. If it weren't for the taxes paid by the hated bankers and other people in the City of London the welfare cuts would be twice as bad as they are.
Utter Tosh !!. not even worth expanding on.
[quote][p][bold]Legal Beagle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]noddy57[/bold] wrote: must agree with the first post` its a national disgrace that the south continues to attract all the investments while the poorer north are left with so little it fails to register as an amount,but what,s new ?it has always been like that and while the Tories are in no 10 it will always be so.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately, the whole attitude displayed by these comments and similar ones on other stories of deprivation in East Lancs explains all too accurately why the deprivation exists. It is just pathetic to blame the Tories for the lack of investment in the area. The simple fact is that the proportion of people in East Lancs who are under-educated, lacking in skills, poor, ill, and generally an economic burden rather than an asset is far higher than in most other areas of England. That's why there is so little investment. People in this area are used to living off the state, whether it's through a life on benefits or some non-job in the public sector. Hence all the moaning about money going to support people in the south. It's complete nonsense. People in London and the south east don't need to wait for some part of the public sector to offer them a nice, cushy number where they can spend half their life off sick and then pick up a fat pension at our expense. There are plenty of good, well-paid jobs in the private sector there, because that's unfortunately where most of the talent and the entrepreneurs and the foreign investment ends up nowadays. Sadly, this is hardly surprising. If you're a university graduate (and by university I mean a proper university, not some jumped up College of FE) or an American / Indian / Chinese CEO looking to open a new operation in the UK and on day one you visit Guildford or Newbury and on day two you visit Accrington or Nelson it doesn't take Einstein to work out which is most likely to get the vote. The fact is that large parts of East Lancashire are a dump. Towns like Nelson and Accrington no longer have any real purpose. The reasons they originally came into being - textiles, mining, heavy industry - have long gone, and if it weren't for huge amounts of government subsidy (from both Labour and Tories) they would by now be like Detroit, with weeds growing out of the M65. Yes, there are still plenty of hard-working and entrepreneurial people in the area, but they tend to be self-employed in one man or very small businesses rather than large corporations, so employ very few people. It's about time the readers of the LET who moan about the south stealing all the jobs realised that like it or not London and the south east keep places like East Lancashire going. If it weren't for the taxes paid by the hated bankers and other people in the City of London the welfare cuts would be twice as bad as they are.[/p][/quote]Utter Tosh !!. not even worth expanding on. noddy57
  • Score: 0

7:54am Wed 11 Jun 14

zabby says...

ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123 wrote:
tonygreaves wrote:
I am sorry that the MP Andrew Stephenson seems quite to ignorant about the Housing Market Renewal programme in Pendle and the disastrous results of the sudden ending of the funding when a lot of schemes were half way through. Struggling with the Elevate bureaucracy under Labour was bad enough. But just cutting the funding and stopping the programmes overnight was lunacy.

Tony Greaves
what renewal programme in Pendle??? or are you talking about that pathetic programme that was started about 20 years ago when if you worked you paid about 90% of the cost if you did.nt work you got it done for nothing so you had terraces with 40% renovated and the other 60% not touched so it made no difference to the area they still looked like slums
Nelson has been turned in to a third world slum,no amount of money will change nelson now,it's the people who live their ,they need to change their outlook towards the uk
[quote][p][bold]ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tonygreaves[/bold] wrote: I am sorry that the MP Andrew Stephenson seems quite to ignorant about the Housing Market Renewal programme in Pendle and the disastrous results of the sudden ending of the funding when a lot of schemes were half way through. Struggling with the Elevate bureaucracy under Labour was bad enough. But just cutting the funding and stopping the programmes overnight was lunacy. Tony Greaves[/p][/quote]what renewal programme in Pendle??? or are you talking about that pathetic programme that was started about 20 years ago when if you worked you paid about 90% of the cost if you did.nt work you got it done for nothing so you had terraces with 40% renovated and the other 60% not touched so it made no difference to the area they still looked like slums[/p][/quote]Nelson has been turned in to a third world slum,no amount of money will change nelson now,it's the people who live their ,they need to change their outlook towards the uk zabby
  • Score: 7

9:24am Wed 11 Jun 14

Stone Island: says...

zabby wrote:
ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123 wrote:
tonygreaves wrote:
I am sorry that the MP Andrew Stephenson seems quite to ignorant about the Housing Market Renewal programme in Pendle and the disastrous results of the sudden ending of the funding when a lot of schemes were half way through. Struggling with the Elevate bureaucracy under Labour was bad enough. But just cutting the funding and stopping the programmes overnight was lunacy.

Tony Greaves
what renewal programme in Pendle??? or are you talking about that pathetic programme that was started about 20 years ago when if you worked you paid about 90% of the cost if you did.nt work you got it done for nothing so you had terraces with 40% renovated and the other 60% not touched so it made no difference to the area they still looked like slums
Nelson has been turned in to a third world slum,no amount of money will change nelson now,it's the people who live their ,they need to change their outlook towards the uk
Correct zabby. And Blackburn is going the same way. Some areas of Blackburn are an absolute disgrace. I can't believe that these people are happy to live in such squalor.
[quote][p][bold]zabby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ROBERTSLUMDWELLER123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tonygreaves[/bold] wrote: I am sorry that the MP Andrew Stephenson seems quite to ignorant about the Housing Market Renewal programme in Pendle and the disastrous results of the sudden ending of the funding when a lot of schemes were half way through. Struggling with the Elevate bureaucracy under Labour was bad enough. But just cutting the funding and stopping the programmes overnight was lunacy. Tony Greaves[/p][/quote]what renewal programme in Pendle??? or are you talking about that pathetic programme that was started about 20 years ago when if you worked you paid about 90% of the cost if you did.nt work you got it done for nothing so you had terraces with 40% renovated and the other 60% not touched so it made no difference to the area they still looked like slums[/p][/quote]Nelson has been turned in to a third world slum,no amount of money will change nelson now,it's the people who live their ,they need to change their outlook towards the uk[/p][/quote]Correct zabby. And Blackburn is going the same way. Some areas of Blackburn are an absolute disgrace. I can't believe that these people are happy to live in such squalor. Stone Island:
  • Score: 3

7:04pm Wed 11 Jun 14

BURNLEYITE40 says...

tonygreaves wrote:
I am sorry that the MP Andrew Stephenson seems quite to ignorant about the Housing Market Renewal programme in Pendle and the disastrous results of the sudden ending of the funding when a lot of schemes were half way through. Struggling with the Elevate bureaucracy under Labour was bad enough. But just cutting the funding and stopping the programmes overnight was lunacy.

Tony Greaves
is that CURLY ?????????????? LOL from Burnley ?? Lol
[quote][p][bold]tonygreaves[/bold] wrote: I am sorry that the MP Andrew Stephenson seems quite to ignorant about the Housing Market Renewal programme in Pendle and the disastrous results of the sudden ending of the funding when a lot of schemes were half way through. Struggling with the Elevate bureaucracy under Labour was bad enough. But just cutting the funding and stopping the programmes overnight was lunacy. Tony Greaves[/p][/quote]is that CURLY ?????????????? LOL from Burnley ?? Lol BURNLEYITE40
  • Score: -1

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