On 07/07/2014 14:22, tim..... wrote:
"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
All profit is subject to tax, whether income tax or corporation tax.
It's hard to see why it should automatically be subject to other taxes
(which is what S.106 "agreements" amount to) unless the need for other
development (infrastructure is both pressing and would not exist without
the development.
What would help even more would be the scrapping of Section 106
requirements for new developments to include a large percentage of
"affordable" (ie, paid for by benefits) housing.