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.

On 07/07/2014 15:12, Recliner wrote:
"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

So make planning approval conditional on funding the new railway station
and other essential amenities.

What out of the profits on just one thousand houses?

JNugent wrote:
On 07/07/2014 15:12, Recliner wrote:
"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

So make planning approval conditional on funding the new railway station
and other essential amenities.

What out of the profits on just one thousand houses?

He's talking about 10,000 houses.

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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.

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.

A recipe for soulless dormitories with no facilities like the suburban
estates of the 1960s. Do you really think that is a good idea?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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.

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.

A recipe for soulless dormitories with no facilities like the suburban
estates of the 1960s. Do you really think that is a good idea?

Sink estates, more like.

On 07/07/2014 21:13, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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.

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.

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.

On the other point, why not ask buyers of new homes whether they think
it's a good idea to have 25% of all new developments reserved for social
housing? Any idea of the likely response?

On 07/07/2014 21:34, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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.

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.

A recipe for soulless dormitories with no facilities like the suburban
estates of the 1960s. Do you really think that is a good idea?

Sink estates, more like.

The sink estates are the social housing.

Black is white and foul is fair for you, eh?

JNugent wrote:
On 07/07/2014 21:34, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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.

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.

A recipe for soulless dormitories with no facilities like the suburban
estates of the 1960s. Do you really think that is a good idea?

Sink estates, more like.

The sink estates are the social housing.

Black is white and foul is fair for you, eh?

If the estate is to be mainly social housing, it might as well be 100%, as
the private houses will be unsaleable. And anyone from that post-code will
be almost unemployable and uninsurable.

On 08/07/2014 00:31, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 07/07/2014 21:34, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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.

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.

A recipe for soulless dormitories with no facilities like the suburban
estates of the 1960s. Do you really think that is a good idea?

Sink estates, more like.

The sink estates are the social housing.

Black is white and foul is fair for you, eh?

If the estate is to be mainly social housing, it might as well be 100%, as
the private houses will be unsaleable. And anyone from that post-code will
be almost unemployable and uninsurable.

And it only happens because of unreasonable planning conditions.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 17:31:04 +0100
JNugent wrote:
On 08/07/2014 00:31, Recliner wrote:
If the estate is to be mainly social housing, it might as well be 100%, as
the private houses will be unsaleable. And anyone from that post-code will
be almost unemployable and uninsurable.

And it only happens because of unreasonable planning conditions.

The private houses will sell alright - to landlords who'll then let each out
to half a dozen fresh off the boat clueless immigrants. They'll soon **** off
but it doesn't matter because there are always more where they came from.

--
Spud