In message , at
08:26:42 on Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Neil Williams
remarked:
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.

They tried that approach with Basildon, and failed. Had to give in and
build a station for commuters to London.
--
Roland Perry

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?

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

And the planning consent for their homes (for such of them as have been
built in the post-war period, at least) did not depend on the existence
of that station.

"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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

Eco towns are sustainable developments

all sustainable developments are not eco towns

Did any of them actually get the go-ahead?

no

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at
08:26:42 on Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Neil Williams
remarked:
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.

They tried that approach with Basildon, and failed. Had to give in and
build a station for commuters to London.

Funny that, that's exactly what happened at MK

tim

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:13:47 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:
Funny that, that's exactly what happened at MK

Though I believe MK has a net inflow of commuters.

Neil

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

Well it got sold again yesterday:

http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/BREAK...ail/story.html
(one report amongst many)

To a consortium who are going to build (subject to PP, of course) it into a
mega business park and housing estate.

So good luck with that :-)

I can't understand what all the guff (in the press release) is about there
not being sufficient supply of land for warehousing in the area, there's
already a large plot of land zoned for such on the NW side of the airport,
which currently only has two occupiers and where there's a choice of whole
fields available to build warehousing on, if you want to buy. And if you
want office space you only have to walk into the town centre for a free
choice of many.

As to housing, my current journey again takes me across the cabbage fields
[1] next to Westward Cross where just before the crash PP was given to build
an estate of about 1000 houses. The first tranche of 50 houses has just
been completed and they are clearing the ground for the next 50. At this
rate it will take 20 years to complete - and this is a much more convenient
place to live being, as it is, 2 minutes walk from the largest
retail/leisure park for 30 miles and on the route of about a dozen (mostly
frequent) bus routes. The downside being it's in the sink LA of Thanet.

Why would you chose to live on an estate at Manston Airport, with no local
facilities instead [2], it's not like you're going to get a stunning view
and it's still in Thanet!

tim


[1] On the roads. obviously
[2] not in the short tem anyhow