Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I am for, affordable houses, provided roads; drainage etc. is all in place.
These houses are needed.
I think most people would like to live, looking out over the countryside and that's how it was many moons ago but we have to move on.
I see nothing wrong with New Homes Bonus either, provided it is spent on the areas of build and not elsewhere.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Whitfield development is ``Supposed`` to end up with Thirty percent affordable homes.
Developers in the first stage do not include for one?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
theres also the big discussion reg on brownfileld or greenfield sites
and of course should most of the new build be in whitfield rather than across the district?
lots more to but theres a start
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i am stiil at a loss as to why nobody builds on that disgusting site in malvern road.
2 minutes from the high speed link and about 5 minutes from the town centre.
we also have the westmount site.
both very much brownfield, would still bring in growth point money.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
thanks keith, i must remember to put up pictures of the old one.
i heard that the maxton one was for the chop next.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
howard
maxton one long gone
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i suppose we shall have to all get together and keep guard overnight at the elms vale one.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Sholden will have affordable houses Howard, don't know what made you think it wouldn't.
Reg. phase 1a is the only phase not to have affordable housing and that is because that phase will have the community build in it, so the developer (quite rightly in my view) asked for affordable houses not to be included.
The wording for developer agreements has always been "to seek 30% affordable homes". I do believe there can always be exceptions, but each one much be "exceptional", not commonplace.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i will have to check back but i am certain that the affordable homes agreement seemed to get dropped somewhere along the line.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I was on the Planning Committee Howard. 30% for Sholden was never argued about.
The development in St. Rads - Barwick Road, was turned down because the developer couldn't provide 30% affordable housing - he'd come back to ask for a revised agreement, but the majority of the planning committee said no - 30 % or nothing, so it's nothing.
I voted that we should have allowed it, as I felt, still do, that the St. Rads area not only needs that development, but it deserves it; it needs bringing up, but will now stay as it is for some time.
I would guess that all of St. Rads has affordable housing.
I've always said that profit is not a dirty word, seems that others differ.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
not sure where profit enters the equation roger.
developers enter the affordable housing into the equation when they want to build somewhere.
they know what the market can stand and look at what they can build on the cheap and still make a profit out of the whole project.
take your point about the barwick road one, was there no room for negotiation?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
howard;
i think its fair to say the planning dept has never been forward looking
and i have shown examples of this.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Everyone builds on the cheap unless they are going to live in the end product. That's human nature.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
This has nothing to do with the planning department Keith, it was the Planning Committee (Councillors) who turned it down.
It is true Howard that a developer will cost out and determine the viability of a development, but it will (obvously) be calculated at the then present economic time and circumstance; it's when those economic circumstances change, that it may then become unviable, which is what happened at Barwick Road.
That's not always the case Peter, not at all.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
roger;
its fantastic that you believe you are running the council and not the officers,
well done my son lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
Roger is correct .It was councillors who voted against the Barwick Road development .Against a clear recommendation from the officers.St Radigunds is crying out for some up market development ,it is a brown field site that is the subject of the application.I met the developers with the Leader many years ago .I suggest Keith you find out who voted against a vast improvement for this area .
Dont always knock the officers.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
SUE;
Let me explain a little more,
whilst in opposition you were a good cllr but sadly once in a position of power you changed a lot but thats fine.
on the questioin of officer control, please sue, its fair to say that the officers run the council, and in there position where cllrs are more absent than they are present i would probably in a officers position do the same.
of course officers will tell you as much as they want you to know, and find ways to trip you up if you go anywhere near trying to gain a little control.
this is nothing new and its no different whatever political party is the largest party.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 58............Having been Leader of the Council I totally agree.
It took me eight months to put myself on the Management Team.........where all the decisions were made.....after two meetings I realised the ```Management team``` had gone under ground.
Sir Humphrey was still making the decisions.....and because the majority of Councillors were Officer lead a proper debate was impossible................result Officers rule.
I therefore tried to introduce the Cabinet structure to take the power away from the Officers.........unfortununately my group were not ready for the responsibility and would not approve the move.
Although we have a Cabinet Structure now there is no doubt Sir Humphery will still rule............
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Doesn't sound like a very good leader then !!
Been nice knowing you :)
