Jump to content

High rise homes?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Notice our planners are allowing high rise homes next to the Mersey again?! :shock: Now whilst high rise may be the thing of the future, surely next to or near the Mersey, places such developments in the flood plain, creating the very problems of flooding that folk are currently experiencing? Perhaps the developers will propose that they be built on stilts to overcome this problem, and provide boats in the basement? :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol::wink: Not a bad idea actually Obs as residents of the new developments could also commute along the mersey using their boats therefore the impact of having so many new homes in one place would not add to the already over congested roads in Warrington :wink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, most high rise tend not to be attractive; but needs must: with increasing population and increasing single lifestyles comes increasing housing need, which in turn will increase land values and the price of property. So, high rise appears the only way to provide homes at an affordable price. Don't actually believe any private developer is really interested in "affordable housing" though, but it nominally provides a usefull free pass through the planning process. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it does Obs .. as it's the 'in phrase' that is used to give reason for granting approval and the developers know it...... although it's the 106 agreements that play the biggest part in swaying the whole planning decision process :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must have missed the original story...

 

I think the last high rise plans were the 11(?) storey flats for Howley Lane (turned down by the WBC planners, and allowed at the appeal if reduced to 7 storeys so as not to ruin the view of distance of St Elphin's). Not sure of details, it's bout 3 years ago. But I do recall one committee member not liking the barrel roofs, even though it's the style of some of the posh blocks along the Thames at Chelsea.

 

But the Grand Central development at Central Station did (because of its elevated site) mean some of the new blocks there were overlooking properties in St Peter's Way. Peninsular House overlooks a lot of properties.

 

The other great contest in recent years was over the big development in Lymm (The Battle of Sheila's Field?) where the proposal for three storeys was scaled down to two - resulting in a squat long building that members could then say "looked like Auschwitz"....

 

s.106 agreements and "planning gain" have had the effect of virtually eradicating corruption (bribing officers and members to get consents) which was not rife but not uncommon 30/40 years ago. It's still a sort of bribery, but at least the benefit is to the community not the pockets of the corrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

s.106 agreements and "planning gain" have had the effect of virtually eradicating corruption (bribing officers and members to get consents) which was not rife but not uncommon 30/40 years ago. It's still a sort of bribery, but at least the benefit is to the community not the pockets of the corrupt.

 

True but as decisions are not made by a couple of people any longer the old style bribery and corruption methods must have been eradicated to some extent anyway... unless of course you are infering that all members of the current dev control board are open to bribary :lol:

 

s106 agreements are just a simple way of gaining planning permission by way of 'obligations' and ????'s when in real terms there are sufficient and obvious reasons to REFUSE planning permission for a development.

 

So basically the rich developers are just paying for approval regardless... which is probably why most fail on first submission.. but succedd on the second as they dig deeper into their pockets :wink:

 

With the council being so far in debt then anything goes these days eh :shock::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ok IF it gets to the community concerned. my understanding is that it goes into a common pot, and that the area concerned doesn't see the benefit.

 

Yes Peter :wink:

 

and from the 'common pot' to.............??????

 

Note also how the paltry amounts of social housing offered, which manage to swing the planning decisions are further reduced before the actual developments are completed. Or somehow don't manage to materialise at all. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ok IF it gets to the community concerned. my understanding is that it goes into a common pot, and that the area concerned doesn't see the benefit.

 

Yes Peter :wink:

 

and from the 'common pot' to.............??????

 

Note also how the paltry amounts of social housing offered, which manage to swing the planning decisions are further reduced before the actual developments are completed. Or somehow don't manage to materialise at all. :roll:

 

That depends on which councillor has the loudest voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's McBain got to these days? :shock:

 

I was wondering that too last night as any mention of large developments, peel holdings and 106's etc always attracted McBain.

 

I used to mention them on purpose just to get him back if he'd been quiet for a while.... :wink::lol:

 

I actually miss him as he was good to argue with (oooh I mean discuss :shock::lol: )

 

Hope he's ok :shock:

 

Of course 'he' may have been a 'she' so I use the term 'he' loosely :shock::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it would help if when they apply for planning permission, they were told to stick to the application or take a walk. Sadly, no-one has the bottle to do that.

 

I thought they HAD TO stick to the application and all the obligations under the 106's.

 

The s106 deed charge can only be discharged from Land Registries 'Charges Register' at the say so of the Council and that is supposed to happen when all listed obligations have been met :wink:

 

Although obviously the council can discharge it sooner if they want to :wink::roll:

 

Oooh I think I have just cancelled out my first sentence there :wink:8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can (and does) happen in the case of affordable housing is that the developer will at the time of application offer to include what appears to be a reasonable number of affordable units, the application then gets passed. Later however the developer can apply for the agreement to be ammended in such ways as;

offering money to be spent on affordable provision elsewhere,

or they can even negotiate a reduction in the number of units originally agreed...for reasons such as.....the overall development costs are proving costlier than expected.

Strangely enough they don't get told "Tough, should have calculated more efficiently in the first place, make a fresh planning application.

So that the original number of affordable units, which swung the planning application in their favour in the first place, never actually materialise. :roll::evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...