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?

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.

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.
--
Phil Cook

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?

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.


I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

If you take into account all the Government help, from derelict land
grants for cleaning up the subsoil through all the sweeteners for
developers to paying £1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.

I have to say that I agree with Adrian. If the development was
anywhere as near as profitable as its protagonists suggest, there
wouldn't need to be a penny of taxpayers' money supporting it.

No doubt some politicians will stand to benefit from their support of
this scheme using OUR money. Perhaps they should be using their own
money instead?

Someone Somewhere wrote:

Of course I would expect a proportion of the housing to meet whatever
the agreed criteria is for affordable or social


The Coalition recently announced that the binding targets for
affordable housing would be dropped.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.

developers to paying £1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.

Has the money spent on the JLE been recouped? Or any tube line? How do you
propose to measure it?

B2003

d wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.


Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.


developers to paying £1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.

Has the money spent on the JLE been recouped? Or any tube line?


The developers of Canary Wharf made a very substantial contribution to
the cost of the JLE. I'd like to know why the Battersea developers
are not going to do that. The thing has a nasty stench about it.


How do you propose to measure it?


There is a huge variety of methods of valuing planning gain and
discounting it back to current values, then comparing it to the
capital costs to derive rates of return. Such calculations will be
relatively routine.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:36:17 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.


Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.

Does it really matter? The extension will be a benefit for the whole area.

B2003

On 05/12/2012 16:36, Anthony Polson wrote:
d wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.


Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.


developers to paying £1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.

Mr Osborne announced: “As one of the first projects to benefit from this
scheme, the Government will provide a UK Guarantee to allow the Mayor of
London to borrow £1 billion at a new preferential rate to support the
Northern Line Extension to Battersea scheme, subject to due diligence
and the agreement of a binding Funding and Development Agreement with
developers, the Mayor of London and partner authorities during 2013.

“The Northern Line extension to Battersea is key to the redevelopment of
Battersea Power Station and the regeneration of an historic part of London.

"Government intervention has the potential to enable an £8 billion
investment at the Battersea Power Station site, supporting the wider
redevelopment planned for Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea."

--
Phil Cook