"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 10:55:28 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin9 wrote:
tim.....;143531 Wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
Basil Jet wrote:-
;-(-
I guess it's worth much more as land for building.-
Only if someone else pays for all the infrastructure improvements to
get
people to where there are jobs.
Thanet is a sea of low priced housing and next to zero jobs (and high
deprivation). You aren't going to find many buyers for "estate"
houses
at
much above "build" costs unless they can find work in the area or have
good
access to London.
neither of which are the case here.
People who think that they can build 10,000 houses in this location
and
sell
them for 150-200K each to unwaged/unemployed/retired, are living in
cloud
cuckoo land.
tim
As many London Local Authorities have noticed that "exporting" their
council
tenants is cheaper than housing them in London, it might possible to
sell the
whole 10,000 to London Boroughs.
In any case, it's 1,000, not 10,000 homes.
The 1000 is the planning request already put in for houses that could be
built with the airport remaining open.
10,000 is an estimate for the whole site (and therefore a reflection of
the
potential value of the land) if it remains closed (which it probably will)
Presumably if they do apply for permission to build thousands of new
homes, the developers will also be required to fund infrastructure
improvements (planning gains), including roads, schools, public
transport, and all the rest.
There are two issues he
1) A site needs to be "sustainable". For 10,000 house (in location like
this) that means that you need to included on the site schools, doctors
surgery, shops etc. But much of that is revenue generating anyway (the
doctor pays rent, Tesco will pay you for the land and build their own
supermarket). And it needs to be accessible, which here isn't a problem as,
if the whole site is redeveloped, it will easily link into the new access
road that has just been built.
2) You need to pay for the planning gain by giving the LA money to improve
other services, such as, as you suggest public transport. But you will note
that the Tories have decided that, in the current market, developers who
have paid "full price" for their land can no longer make any profit if they
have to make these payments so they have, temporarily, scrapped them. It
could be that this site will receive PP on the basis that 20 million pounds
of planning gain that ought to be paid (mostly for the new railway station
that the viability of the site seems to rely upon) won't be charged and the
rest of us will have to pick up the bill so that Goag can keep her 50
million profit on the sale of the land!
The developer will also have to show that there are jobs for all of these
10,000 new residents. Without the railway station, that will be impossible
tim