McBain Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Good point Obs. In relation to Affordable Housing, I note that the Council's SPD says it will support proposals that offer 50% or more as a way to beat the "Housing Restraint" mechanism. If (and it is a VERY big "if") Satnam was to go along with this then you might be looking at nearly 607 Affordable Houses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 But we still don't really know - what "affordable" means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Settle Posted November 3, 2007 Report Share Posted November 3, 2007 One impact of this development will I believe be the construction of a new accss road from Radley Lane to Delph Lane. This road from the previously submitted plans that I saw in New Town House will cut its way through the two football pitches behind the Mill House. So bang goes another recreational facility Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 4, 2007 Report Share Posted November 4, 2007 Maybe Satnam will fund a Stadium as an alternative?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky71 Posted November 4, 2007 Report Share Posted November 4, 2007 Best get used to this, 60 million of us crammed onto our small island, and more coming every day. We'll soon be driving an hour to see countryside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Settle Posted November 4, 2007 Report Share Posted November 4, 2007 Can't agree with you TF you might accept such a way forward but I don't. Actually if Satnam where to plan and consider a sporting & recreational based development with an ecilogical & conservational theme that might not be such a bad idea Obs. [ 04.11.2007, 07:11: Message edited by: Geoff Settle ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willywonka Posted November 4, 2007 Report Share Posted November 4, 2007 Geoff - you have wonkamail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 4, 2007 Report Share Posted November 4, 2007 Originally posted by Geoff Settle: Can't agree with you TF you might accept such a way forward but I don't. Not much choice though is there really? The government seem intent on letting just about everyone who can get here into the country to stay. I'd say 60 million was an understatement! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 4, 2007 Report Share Posted November 4, 2007 Well they need about 250 new houses per day; to appease population increases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky71 Posted November 4, 2007 Report Share Posted November 4, 2007 latest figures show that each year there are 240 000 more people staying in the country than have left. We need to build a town the size of Derby every year just to keep up. Welcome to the concrete island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 Will the last person to leave the UK, please turn the lights out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 ah yes... but for every one that leaves there are a few more coming this way to turn the lights on again!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Settle Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 Originally posted by willywonka: Geoff - you have wonkamail. Do you mean work email? If you do then as I leave tomorrow it will like the lights be switched off. You can always send me a private message via WWW which gets forwarded to my Yahoo account It will certainly be an item on the next Poulton Parish Council agenda as I'm sure it will be for Winwick. [ 05.11.2007, 06:34: Message edited by: Geoff Settle ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 I wonder what figures they use to arrive at their stats? Do they consider housing? HL Do you consider housing and medical needs when forming your conclusions? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted November 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 Rather than have this thread morph into another moan about immigration (and it is worth moaning about) I'd rather we stick to the original topic. To try and answer Obs original question about what "flavour" of Affordable Housing is being sought, I understand that the Council will only countenance two types: commuted sum payment (the developer's favourite) or Registered Social Landlord (the developer's least favourite - but most practical). Again, using "McMathematics", I reckon that if the Council is competent at negotiating: Affordable Housing commuted sum: 20% of total dwellings = 243 243 x ?estimated plot cost = commuted sum 243 x ?40,000 = ?9,720,000!! Based on that estimate is it clearly going to be a FAR cheaper option for Satnam to either fund another stadium or do some pi$$-poor ecological park as a sop to the environmental policies in the UDP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 Well, given that the planners have failed to achieve anywhere near 20% overall todate; perhaps they have some catching up to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted November 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 Planners achieved 19.2% on the Walton Lock scheme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 They've achieved NIL on some, but taken "commuted sums" towards "affordable" schemes elsewhere: SO, in theory; they should achieve or have achieved an overall 20% affordable of the total of new build - but somehow I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted November 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 Can't argue with you there Obs, the Dawson House site was a classic case of taking the money to make it easier for UU to develop (?3.95m in that case) rather than hold out for actual units on the ground that will help people NOW. Still, I guess the Council has its reasons - even if they are not always apparent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Settle Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 Good to see a return to the topic in question Peel Hall planning decision instead of the defeatist dicussion about what type of houses may be built on the land. I wonder if the council will learn from their mistake? Will they fight on or roll over and have their die? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 5, 2007 Report Share Posted November 5, 2007 Be interesting to tally up the number of wins, that the Council has had through the legal system against developers, and the cost of their losses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted November 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2007 This has been tried before Obs when the top man of the Development Control section put a report to Members pointing out the cost of the committee overturning officer's recommendations. The Members went ballistic and ranted on about democracy, instead of realising that their inept decision making was costing hundreds of thousands of pounds. Still, when have the Members ever been interested in being held accountable All they want are the perks with none of the responsibility :redmad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 6, 2007 Report Share Posted November 6, 2007 The truth is often inconvenient! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted November 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2007 Damn right Anyway, the Court Service is being unusally tardy with regard to making a printed version of the judgement available, but when I get it I will post up a link or the edited highlights. What would someone bet that Satnam are now looking to see which footpaths can be stopped up? If anything is going to crimp Satnam's ability to max out the site it will be inconvenient things like public footpaths, ponds etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 6, 2007 Report Share Posted November 6, 2007 Perhaps the local objectors will be sneaking a few Greater Crested Newts onto the site - that could hold things up?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.