| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
;-( |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
Basil Jet wrote:
;-( I guess it's worth much more as land for building. Airports near to be reasonably near their customers to have value. It's why Borisport won't be built. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
|
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
|
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"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 |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"tim....." 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. Ann Gloag (of Stagecoach fame) must think she can make a profit on the deal: "Ann Gloag's decision to close an airport that she bought for £1 last year and then seek to build up to 1,000 homes on the site has created an unholy brouhaha that has sucked in everyone from the prime minister down. The joint founder of the Stagecoach bus company, who is said to be worth £500m, bought Manston airport in Kent last autumn for the nominal amount and pledged to deliver "real potential for growth". She promised the local Tory MP, Sir Roger Gale, that she would commit to the airport for two years." From http://www.theguardian.com/business/...k-kent-airport |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
On 06/07/2014 14:48, Recliner wrote:
"tim....." 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. Ann Gloag (of Stagecoach fame) must think she can make a profit on the deal: "Ann Gloag's decision to close an airport that she bought for £1 last year and then seek to build up to 1,000 homes on the site has created an unholy brouhaha that has sucked in everyone from the prime minister down. The joint founder of the Stagecoach bus company, who is said to be worth £500m, bought Manston airport in Kent last autumn for the nominal amount and pledged to deliver "real potential for growth". She promised the local Tory MP, Sir Roger Gale, that she would commit to the airport for two years." From http://www.theguardian.com/business/...k-kent-airport 1,000 homes would fit into a small corner of Manston, possible without even affecting its capacity for aircraft landings and take-offs. The whole site is effectively about the same size as Herne Bay and Whitstable combined. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "tim....." 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. Ann Gloag (of Stagecoach fame) must think she can make a profit on the deal: It only cost her a pound, so that wouldn't be difficult. What I don't understand is if this land is so valuable an amenity that the council didn't buy it when one pound was enough, just like the Scottish Government bought Prestwick (they we both for sale at the same time from the same seller). "Ann Gloag's decision to close an airport that she bought for £1 last year and then seek to build up to 1,000 homes on the site has created an unholy brouhaha that has sucked in everyone from the prime minister down. The 1000 houses is on a piece of land adjacent to the airport that, they say, is no longer necessary for operational uses. The brouhaha is likely to be over the claim that it is "sustainable", when by any sensible meaning of the term (in the planning sense) it patently is not: It is disconnected from the current urban sprawl. It is served by a bus service of only 10 buses a day. It is only approachable down narrow roads that are almost certainly unsuitable for the extra traffic likely to be generated. It is too far from the railway station for that to be directly useful for commuting access. The plans provide for the building of a junior school on site , but for every other aspect of life: secondary education, work, shopping, medical services etc residents will have to travel into one of the local centres. As they are too far away to walk, and the bus service inadequate for most purposes that means getting into a car and driving along these unsuitable roads. Any sensible planning authority would say to the developer - "don't be silly"! The joint founder of the Stagecoach bus company, who is said to be worth £500m, bought Manston airport in Kent last autumn for the nominal amount and pledged to deliver "real potential for growth". She promised the local Tory MP, Sir Roger Gale, that she would commit to the airport for two years." a promise that she broke (not that it was ever worth anything) tim |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 06/07/2014 14:48, Recliner wrote: "tim....." 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. Ann Gloag (of Stagecoach fame) must think she can make a profit on the deal: "Ann Gloag's decision to close an airport that she bought for £1 last year and then seek to build up to 1,000 homes on the site has created an unholy brouhaha that has sucked in everyone from the prime minister down. The joint founder of the Stagecoach bus company, who is said to be worth £500m, bought Manston airport in Kent last autumn for the nominal amount and pledged to deliver "real potential for growth". She promised the local Tory MP, Sir Roger Gale, that she would commit to the airport for two years." From http://www.theguardian.com/business/...k-kent-airport 1,000 homes would fit into a small corner of Manston, possible without even affecting its capacity for aircraft landings and take-offs. The whole site is effectively about the same size as Herne Bay and Whitstable combined. without any of the desirability factor :-) tim |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "tim....." 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. Ann Gloag (of Stagecoach fame) must think she can make a profit on the deal: It only cost her a pound, so that wouldn't be difficult. It's worth reading the full original story. Not just the short extract I quoted. Here's another extract that talks about a £23m she may also have taken on as part of the deal: "Many have questioned Gloag's sudden change of heart and the arcane way Manston has apparently been loaded with debt. Accounts reveal that, last October, Infratil Kent Facilities, the then owner of the airport, issued £23m of shares to its parent company, Infratil Airports Europe, which weeks later sold the struggling Prestwick airport near Ayr to the Scottish government for £1. The accounts reveal the share issue was funded by an "intra-group loan". On 29 November 2013, Gloag's company, Manston Skyport Ltd, bought Infratil Kent's entire share capital for the nominal £1, a move that appears to have made it liable for the £23m loan. The reason for the deal remains opaque. Gloag declined to talk to the Observer. Apart from Gloag, the only other director of Manston Skyport is Pauline Bradley, the former head of joint ventures at Bank of Scotland, who led the bank's move into property development in south-east England. Critics have now accused Gloag of never being serious about keeping the airport open. "She just wanted to strip the value of the land and the properties on it," said Ian McCoulough, the Unite regional officer who represents the firefighters based at the airport. Gale has described the move as "the unacceptable face of capitalism"." What I don't understand is if this land is so valuable an amenity that the council didn't buy it when one pound was enough, just like the Scottish Government bought Prestwick (they we both for sale at the same time from the same seller). "Ann Gloag's decision to close an airport that she bought for £1 last year and then seek to build up to 1,000 homes on the site has created an unholy brouhaha that has sucked in everyone from the prime minister down. The 1000 houses is on a piece of land adjacent to the airport that, they say, is no longer necessary for operational uses. The brouhaha is likely to be over the claim that it is "sustainable", when by any sensible meaning of the term (in the planning sense) it patently is not: It is disconnected from the current urban sprawl. It is served by a bus service of only 10 buses a day. It is only approachable down narrow roads that are almost certainly unsuitable for the extra traffic likely to be generated. It is too far from the railway station for that to be directly useful for commuting access. The plans provide for the building of a junior school on site , but for every other aspect of life: secondary education, work, shopping, medical services etc residents will have to travel into one of the local centres. As they are too far away to walk, and the bus service inadequate for most purposes that means getting into a car and driving along these unsuitable roads. Any sensible planning authority would say to the developer - "don't be silly"! The joint founder of the Stagecoach bus company, who is said to be worth £500m, bought Manston airport in Kent last autumn for the nominal amount and pledged to deliver "real potential for growth". She promised the local Tory MP, Sir Roger Gale, that she would commit to the airport for two years." a promise that she broke (not that it was ever worth anything) tim |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "tim....." wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... "tim....." 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. Ann Gloag (of Stagecoach fame) must think she can make a profit on the deal: It only cost her a pound, so that wouldn't be difficult. It's worth reading the full original story. Not just the short extract I quoted. Here's another extract that talks about a £23m she may also have taken on as part of the deal: do you mean she received 23 million. or became liable for 23 million. You seem to be saying the former. But if so where did it magically come from? |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "tim....." wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... "tim....." 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. Ann Gloag (of Stagecoach fame) must think she can make a profit on the deal: It only cost her a pound, so that wouldn't be difficult. It's worth reading the full original story. Not just the short extract I quoted. Here's another extract that talks about a £23m she may also have taken on as part of the deal: do you mean she received 23 million. or became liable for 23 million. You seem to be saying the former. But if so where did it magically come from? She appears to have picked up the responsibility for a £23m debt, as the company was loaded with this debt before the sale. So the £1 she paid wasn't the actual cost. Read the linked story for more details. |
Quote:
tenants is cheaper than housing them in London, it might possible to sell the whole 10,000 to London Boroughs. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"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) tim |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 04:15:59PM +0100, tim..... wrote:
It is served by a bus service of only 10 buses a day. So change the bus service. Perhaps if it is made worthwhile to run more buses - by, for example, providing loads of customers who live there - you'll get a better service. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive All praise the Sun God For He is a Fun God Ra Ra Ra! |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"David Cantrell" wrote in message k... On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 04:15:59PM +0100, tim..... wrote: It is served by a bus service of only 10 buses a day. So change the bus service. Perhaps if it is made worthwhile to run more buses - by, for example, providing loads of customers who live there - you'll get a better service. Oh agreed but there's no guarantee that they bus company *will* run it commercially, and a developer can't just assume that tim |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"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 tim |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"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. It's what's happened with the Nine Elms and Battersea power station redevelopments, which had to fund the Northern Line extension with two stations, as well as the Canary Wharf and Woolwich Crossrail stations. The JLE was also partly funded by Canary Wharf. I'm sure there are many other examples, as this is a well established procedure. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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? |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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 |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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? |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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? |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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 |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"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 |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"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 |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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). |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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? |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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. |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
"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 |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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 |
Manston Airport shut permanently on 15th May
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:48 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk