"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

So the only way that the 10,000 wage earners on this site will be able to
find work is for them to commute, in most cases all the way to London, and
that requires a station to commute from.

There is already a paper plan for a Thanet "parkway" station within walking
distance of the site but that was only proposed to supply punters to the
airport, which the council seemed happy should be paid for out of public
funds because more punters at the airport creates more of the, needed, jobs.

But with no airport, the only element of benefit from the new station is the
increased value of the adjacent houses. So ISTM that it is reasonable for
the builders of these houses to pay for the station. Why should the rest of
us pay for the construction of this station so that the owner of the
adjacent land gain?

tim

"tim....." wrote

But with no airport, the only element of benefit from the new station is
the increased value of the adjacent houses. So ISTM that it is reasonable
for the builders of these houses to pay for the station. Why should the
rest of us pay for the construction of this station so that the owner of
the adjacent land gain?

Government funding form Thanet Parkway sation has been announced, despite
the closure ofm the airport.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...-kent-28190181

Peter

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.

So the only way that the 10,000 wage earners on this site will be able
to find work is for them to commute, in most cases all the way to
London, and that requires a station to commute from.

Plenty of people do it right now. Thanet and the Southend areas send
many thousands of commuters to London every day, and more to other
places in Kent and Essex.

There is already a paper plan for a Thanet "parkway" station within
walking distance of the site but that was only proposed to supply
punters to the airport, which the council seemed happy should be paid
for out of public funds because more punters at the airport creates more
of the, needed, jobs.

That is within the discretion of local councils. But it does not form
part of the planning system.

But with no airport, the only element of benefit from the new station is
the increased value of the adjacent houses. So ISTM that it is
reasonable for the builders of these houses to pay for the station. Why
should the rest of us pay for the construction of this station so that
the owner of the adjacent land gain?

For the same reason that we pay for every other railway station (and we do)?

Just a suggestion.

JNugent wrote:
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.

So the only way that the 10,000 wage earners on this site will be able
to find work is for them to commute, in most cases all the way to
London, and that requires a station to commute from.

Plenty of people do it right now. Thanet and the Southend areas send many
thousands of commuters to London every day, and more to other places in Kent and Essex.

There is already a paper plan for a Thanet "parkway" station within
walking distance of the site but that was only proposed to supply
punters to the airport, which the council seemed happy should be paid
for out of public funds because more punters at the airport creates more
of the, needed, jobs.

That is within the discretion of local councils. But it does not form
part of the planning system.

But with no airport, the only element of benefit from the new station is
the increased value of the adjacent houses. So ISTM that it is
reasonable for the builders of these houses to pay for the station. Why
should the rest of us pay for the construction of this station so that
the owner of the adjacent land gain?

For the same reason that we pay for every other railway station (and we do)?

Apart, that is, from the many stations fully or partly paid for by property
developers. Recent examples include Canary Wharf (Crossrail and JLE),
Woolwich (Crossrail), Nine Elms and Battersea (Northern Line), and various
DLR projects (Olympics).

On 09/07/2014 00:48, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
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.

So the only way that the 10,000 wage earners on this site will be able
to find work is for them to commute, in most cases all the way to
London, and that requires a station to commute from.

Plenty of people do it right now. Thanet and the Southend areas send many
thousands of commuters to London every day, and more to other places in Kent and Essex.

There is already a paper plan for a Thanet "parkway" station within
walking distance of the site but that was only proposed to supply
punters to the airport, which the council seemed happy should be paid
for out of public funds because more punters at the airport creates more
of the, needed, jobs.

That is within the discretion of local councils. But it does not form
part of the planning system.

But with no airport, the only element of benefit from the new station is
the increased value of the adjacent houses. So ISTM that it is
reasonable for the builders of these houses to pay for the station. Why
should the rest of us pay for the construction of this station so that
the owner of the adjacent land gain?

For the same reason that we pay for every other railway station (and we do)?

Apart, that is, from the many stations fully or partly paid for by property
developers. Recent examples include Canary Wharf (Crossrail and JLE),
Woolwich (Crossrail), Nine Elms and Battersea (Northern Line), and various
DLR projects (Olympics).

Revenue costs, dear boy.

Revenue costs.

JNugent wrote:
On 09/07/2014 00:48, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
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.

So the only way that the 10,000 wage earners on this site will be able
to find work is for them to commute, in most cases all the way to
London, and that requires a station to commute from.

Plenty of people do it right now. Thanet and the Southend areas send many
thousands of commuters to London every day, and more to other places in Kent and Essex.

There is already a paper plan for a Thanet "parkway" station within
walking distance of the site but that was only proposed to supply
punters to the airport, which the council seemed happy should be paid
for out of public funds because more punters at the airport creates more
of the, needed, jobs.

That is within the discretion of local councils. But it does not form
part of the planning system.

But with no airport, the only element of benefit from the new station is
the increased value of the adjacent houses. So ISTM that it is
reasonable for the builders of these houses to pay for the station. Why
should the rest of us pay for the construction of this station so that
the owner of the adjacent land gain?

For the same reason that we pay for every other railway station (and we do)?

Apart, that is, from the many stations fully or partly paid for by property
developers. Recent examples include Canary Wharf (Crossrail and JLE),
Woolwich (Crossrail), Nine Elms and Battersea (Northern Line), and various
DLR projects (Olympics).

Revenue costs, dear boy.

Revenue costs.

Is that supposed to be an answer? Why not just admit you were wrong?

On 09/07/2014 01:27, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 09/07/2014 00:48, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
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.

So the only way that the 10,000 wage earners on this site will be able
to find work is for them to commute, in most cases all the way to
London, and that requires a station to commute from.

Plenty of people do it right now. Thanet and the Southend areas send many
thousands of commuters to London every day, and more to other places in Kent and Essex.

There is already a paper plan for a Thanet "parkway" station within
walking distance of the site but that was only proposed to supply
punters to the airport, which the council seemed happy should be paid
for out of public funds because more punters at the airport creates more
of the, needed, jobs.

That is within the discretion of local councils. But it does not form
part of the planning system.

But with no airport, the only element of benefit from the new station is
the increased value of the adjacent houses. So ISTM that it is
reasonable for the builders of these houses to pay for the station. Why
should the rest of us pay for the construction of this station so that
the owner of the adjacent land gain?

For the same reason that we pay for every other railway station (and we do)?

Apart, that is, from the many stations fully or partly paid for by property
developers. Recent examples include Canary Wharf (Crossrail and JLE),
Woolwich (Crossrail), Nine Elms and Battersea (Northern Line), and various
DLR projects (Olympics).

Revenue costs, dear boy.

Revenue costs.

Is that supposed to be an answer? Why not just admit you were wrong?

Because I'm not wrong.

Section 106 agreements never provide for entire segments of new
transport infrastructure to be paid for by the developer (the nearest
you'll find is the situation with redevelopment of places like London
Bridge or Charing Cross Stations).

Trying to arrange it out in the sticks would guarantee that the
development could not take place.

"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)

So the only way that the 10,000 wage earners on this site will be able
to find work is for them to commute, in most cases all the way to
London, and that requires a station to commute from.

Plenty of people do it right now. Thanet and the Southend areas send many
thousands of commuters to London every day, and more to other places in
Kent and Essex.

Many of those people currently have a station within walking distance

tim

In message , at 21:19:39 on Wed, 9 Jul
2014, tim..... remarked:
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)

Such "sustainable" developments [to include local workplaces and other
features] were sufficiently different to normal that they were called
eco-towns by the last labour government.

Did any of them actually get the go-ahead?

I note that the one which Gordon Brown announced on TV to be the
'first', Northstowe, isn't even on the shortlist, nor do I think they've
started building non-eco housing there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-towns

The failure of s106 payments from the would-be developers has thrown
the Cambridge Guided Bus project into financial crisis, even though the
bus seems to be well enough patronised by passengers from existing
housing in its corridor.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:03:28 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:
Such "sustainable" developments [to include local workplaces and
other
features] were sufficiently different to normal that they were
called
eco-towns by the last labour government.

Or New Towns before?

I understand MK has probably got enough jobs to be self sufficient.
In the real world, though, there is a significant commuting flow both
in and out.

Neil

--
Neil Williams. Use neil before the at to reply.