• The post you are reporting:
   
  Afraid you lost me Alexander - but you did get the grey matter whiring which helped me to understand a basic principle that I think has been overlooked in this argument.
  
  The principal that those who do not want to say a' blanket no' are working on is that limited harm is acceptable providing the benefits outweigh the harm right?
  Herein lies the problem. The developer wants to make profit by building houses and in return wants to give some of that profit to the Western Heights for its improvement. The principal sounds good but this is where it falls apart.
  In PERCENTAGE terms - house building is not that profitable. Yes home builders make a lot of money but the nett profit is not 100% or 50% but much less - before you factor in giving some of it away in return for the permission in the first place.
  This means that the developer can only give a SMALL PERCENTAGE of their overall spend out on 'sweetners' or they will make no money at all. And so on a financial basis alone it is GAURANTEED that the harm to the area will far outweigh the good because much more has to be spent doing harm to make the money to do good. No amount of revisions and tweeks will change this so the answer HAS to be a 'BLANKET NO'
  
  Incidentally, DDC planning department have already said a blanket no! As soon as they adopted the current LDF which excluded these areas from development they said NO - as highlighted by CPRE's objection to the proposal.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason