On 05/12/2012 14:50, Phil Cook wrote:
On 05/12/2012 14:15, 77002 wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
From the Chancellors autumn statement, I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?


The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

Given the number of flats due to be built on the Nine Elms area, due to
be occupied by city types given the prices they are likely to fetch, I
can see some merit in it.

Also having a little more than the Kennington loop to take pressure off
the point where the two branches join can only be a good thing if the
longer term plan is to run more services and potentially split the
branches to remove contention there and at the flat junction at Camden.

Or am I missing something?

Of course I would expect a proportion of the housing to meet whatever
the agreed criteria is for affordable or social, but is your (77002)
single line statement an ideological point otherwise?