"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 09/07/2014 21:19, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 08/07/2014 19:47, tim..... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
wrote:
[ ... ]
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.
A recipe for soulless dormitories with no facilities like the
suburban
estates of the 1960s. Do you really think that is a good idea?
Did you read what I wrote or just what you would prefer to read?
I accepted that if the need for infrastructure arises out of the
development, that can be justification for the developer making a
contribution.
The point about this particular site is that it is virtually impossible
to create the jobs for the residents in situ, and there is already a
shortage of jobs within Thanet so they aren't going to be wanting to
move there to take up an existing vacant opportunity.
Right... please understand this: there is NO planning requirement for
there to be local jobs available for the residents of a proposed new
housing development. There never has been such a requirement.
There is if it needs to be "sustainable". That's part of what
sustainable means (in the planning context)
Can you cite the legislation?
Yeah, the legislation that the Tories pushed through at the start of their
term,
You'll note that I said "if it needs..."
The point being (AIUI) that it needs to be "sustainable" if the developers
wish to force the development through the appeals channels, in the absence
of agreement from the LA.
The LA are, of course, free to give permission to an unsustainable
development, if they are so minded. But (local) public disquiet about the
closure of the airport suggests that they probably wouldn't do this, in this
instance
tim