Matt
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[quote quote=168184]@ Matt….
I think contributors should be able to express their thoughts as they wish on here. If that’s OK with you of course?[/quote]So you’re basically spoiling for an argument. Got a paper bag here for you to sink your teeth in.
Devil’s advocate. Brexit Party looking very popular – so looks like lots of people still want it. We’re still no closer to resolving the down the middle of the country Brexit division than we were almost 3 years ago now.
This is still the longest self destruction of the Tories I’ve ever seen. Every day May remains ‘in charge’ they are losing thousands of voters.
Brilliant – Night club bouncers to be taught new defensive classes against influx of offensive weapons from angry locals shortly after the first successful night opening.
Gang leader alleged to be a Mrs X and her vicious Spoons Wives.
Apparently 59 years average time to replace roads in Wales expected to last 15-20 years.
Something doesn’t add up.
Cinema – got one at Eagles Meadow, Indoor Market – we got 2.5, a Cafe – take your pick, Post Office – down the road in Smiths – Greengrocers – again several.
Was this even a serious suggestion?
It’s a total developer scam to get out of building or contributing to any affordable housing whatsoever – has been well known for years.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2017/07/developers-are-using-trick-get-out-building-affordable-homes
Courtesy of article above New Statesmen
Today we rely on private housebuilders to build most of our homes. But as profit-driven organisations they are, perhaps understandably, not very good at building affordable homes.
A favoured, and perfectly legitimate way of building fewer affordable homes is through something called a “viability assessment”.
When a housing developer gets planning permission they are normally required by the council to make a number of the homes they build officially “affordable”. This number varies across the country but is usually between 30 to 50 per cent and developers will be aware of the requirement before they begin drawing up plans.
But the less affordable housing a developer builds, the more profit they could make, so the developer deploys the viability assessment. This allows them to go back to the council and say that the amount of affordable housing they originally agreed is no longer possible.
They’ll often blame changes in their costs or lower than anticipated house prices (as we’ve seen recently with the Battersea Power Station development), meaning they won’t make sufficient profits to build the number of affordable homes originally planned. Their case is strengthened by the fact the law was changed in 2012 to state that the developer must make “competitive returns” (in practice, 20 per cent profit) on the development.
The massive problem here is that we can’t scrutinise these really important decisions because, guess what, the viability assessment is private. So affordable homes are being denied to people who really need them right across the country in this way, but local communities, journalists, campaigners and charities like Shelter are not being allowed to question it. And of course, it’s those people desperate for an affordable place to live who lose out.
It can be argued that developers are simply following the instinct of most private companies in being competitive and taking the opportunity to make more money. The real issue is that they are allowed to do it so easily in the first place, and keep it a secret.
The viability assessment should only be used when circumstances have made the council’s requirements literally impossible. And in such a case, it should be published so the public can scrutinise it. After all, in such an eventuality – what does anyone have to hide, right?
