Canny lass

That should be far left. I edited it but it doesn't seem to have been amended.

Left to right: Nrs. 7, 6, 5 and 4 Netherton Lane today. Nr 7 far right is The Louge (Hairdressers). I had a look at the 1911 census and two dwellings of the five on Netherton Lane were occupied by Douglas (possibly related). There were no numbers then but 5 must have been Douglas House with 4 rooms. Next door, at number 4 (at the far right of the picture) named "Netherton House", lived a 34 yo woman also named Douglas. She gives her civil status as married but is registered as head of the household. She has two children aged 4 and 1 yo. Strangely, she has the smallest family of all occupiers but has the largest house with 5 rooms. Could it be possible that Ann's GG grandfather was a boarder in that house? Boarders weren't unknown, even on Netherton Lane. next door was The Cottage, Netherton Lane also occupied by a female head with 2 teenage grandchildren and 2 boarders - a head teacher and a bank manager.

Ann, I've sent you a message.

Hi Ann, welcome to the forum. I vaguely recall it being part of the Red House Farm buildings but I'm not 100% sure. One way to locate unknown adresses is to follow the enumerator's route on his census rounds. If you let me have some details of your GG grandfather I'll see if I can help you (name, approx. year of birth and even occupation can be a good start). You can message me if you don't want to post details on site.

Hi Lynne, welcome to he forum! Old Factory, sometimes called Old Factory Row, was, as the name implies, an old disused factory used as housing by the ever increasing mining population in the Bebside and Bedlington Area. I'm afraid i can't see as far as the 1920s but in 1911 the following family may be of interest to you. Living in "two large rooms" with address 27 Old Factory were the following 10 people: John Forster, 53 yo, widower, Head of household, born Newfield, Durham George Forster 17 yo son of the above, born Byker Isabella Giles, 36 yo, widow, housekeeper to the above, born Burradon Jane Isabella Giles, 16yo, boarder, born New Delaval Mary Ann Giles, 14 yo, boarder, born Blyth James Forster Giles, 12 yo, boarder, born Blyth Robert Forster Giles, 6 yo, boarder, born Ashington Lizabeth Forster Giles, 4 yo, boarder, born Bebside Henry Forster Giles, 3 yo, boarder, born Blyth Samuel Clark, 19 yo, boarder, born Mexborough, Yorkshire All three adult males are mine workers. If you would like a copy of the census form filled in by John Forster let me know.

Sorry, didn't see that. However, they can be contacted and they do reply. Perhaps if it's important you could try the contact us page. It works fine.

Worked fine just 5 minutes ago. I recieved a "Thank you for contacting us" reply immediately. Did you complete the 11+1, 22+5 correctly?

Petrol prices being what they are today this ought to be welcomed with open arms - if the ticket price is right.

It’s always interesting to see how the wheels of government grind. I’m all for transparency!

Thanks for the link to the Commons Library. I’ll be saving that for future perusal. Having read the document, am I right in understanding that central government has defined affordable as ”up to 80%” but ileaves it to local government to set the bar on a scale of 0-80% for their own area (30% in the case under discussion)?

It can indeed be right. Affordability means different things to different people because what’s affordable, cheap or expensive to one person is related to that individual’s perception – influenced, as I said previously, by that person’s tastes, feelings and opinions and even circumstances. So every person at that meeting could, and probably did, have their own idea of what was being discussed as ”affordable housing”. It’s a minefield for misunderstanding made all the more explosive if even the various planning instances involved are not working to the same definition. Clearly, in the case of the report under discussion, some body of people somewhere, has defined the term ’affordable’ for the purpose of that project/report – otherwise, Cllr Hardcastle wouldn’t have been able to produce it. Myself, the least I’d expect is that such subjective terminology be defined at the outset of such a report. In that way, no one is left with any doubt as to what is being reported on or being discussed. In the absence of that then it’s good to know that there are people like yourself who are prepared to ask for a definition. Naturally, everyone will not agree with it. As i said, it’s subjective terminology but it has to be called something and provided everyone knows what is meant by the term ’in just that report’ then there is no room for ambiguity – only for differing opinion. Correct me if I’m wrong, Malcolm, but I understood from the government definition provided that the term affordable was specific to just one area - ”30% below the market rate for that area ”. Naturally, I’d expect that 30% to be based on, among other things, wage structure and not just the current market rate and hopefully that is the case. Perhaps market rates reflect the economic status of the area in question? I do, however, take your point about the outcome of basing anything on a super-heated market and, unfortunately, I have to agree. Keep up the good work!

Symptoms, I see where you’re coming from when you mention misleading language. The question we should be asking is whether or not there is deliberate intention to mislead. The english language, or any other for that matter, doesn’t have too many ’absolute’ things – most are variable because they are subjective to the perceiver/user. We all have our own unique perspective on things which is influenced by our own personal tastes, feelings and opinions . These, in their turn, have been influenced by our uppbringing, culture and education. Let me clarify: a dog is a dog - that’s absolute. However, as soon as we get round to putting labels on the dog we are being subjective. A dog that jumps up and licks your face after licking its genitals may be labelled ’disgusting’ by you but labelled ’friendly’ by its owner. Two different ways of perceiving the same thing. And so it is with labels on housing. as well They are also subjective. and have variable meaning according to our own perspective on what is: affordable, expensive, nasty, nice etc.etc. - one man’s meat is another man’s poison. Then, of course, English has a host of words that have both a positive AND a negative meaning. Cheap is a perfect example which in one context retains its original fourteenth century, positive meaning of ’a good bargain’ but in another context adopts the more modern, negative meaning ’of poor quality’. I’m very much aware that this lexical ambiguity can, and is quite often, used deliberately by and to the advantage of politicians, not to mention the field day reporters have with it! Malcolm clearly understands this so I think he did right in asking for the term affordable to be defined. A clear answer, subjective though it may be, (subjectivity can’t, unfortunately, be siphoned off) allows everybody to understand just what is being discussed. For that reason I thought Malcolm’s question was very relevant. He wanted to know the meaning of ’affordable’ according to the person using the term. Its interpretation was vital to everybody ’s understanding of just what was being discussed and, in my opinion, Clr, Hardcastle gave a clear reply in saying that it was a government definition set at 30% below the market rate for that area for rent and shared ownership. This left no one, regardless of their own definition of ’affordable’, in any doubt as to what was being discussed.

A very pertinent question , Malcolm, in relation to the meaning of "affordable" in "affordable housing".

Robert and Joan are a bit younger than me and probably wouldn't remember him.

Good question! I've no idea but I imagine there are a few individuals hoping that they are Bobby and that they'll wake up to find this has all been a bad dream!