Jump to content

Peel Hall Decision


McBain
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :wink:

 

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 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :roll: All they want are the perks with none of the responsibility :redmad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn right :D

 

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.

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...