"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Basil Jet wrote:
;-(

I guess it's worth much more as land for building.

Only if someone else pays for all the infrastructure improvements to
get
people to where there are jobs.

Thanet is a sea of low priced housing and next to zero jobs (and high
deprivation). You aren't going to find many buyers for "estate" houses
at much above "build" costs unless they can find work in the area or
have
good access to London.

neither of which are the case here.

People who think that they can build 10,000 houses in this location and
sell them for 150-200K each to unwaged/unemployed/retired, are living
in cloud cuckoo land.

Ann Gloag (of Stagecoach fame) must think she can make a profit on the
deal:

It only cost her a pound, so that wouldn't be difficult.

It's worth reading the full original story. Not just the short extract I
quoted. Here's another extract that talks about a £23m she may also have
taken on as part of the deal:

do you mean she received 23 million.

or became liable for 23 million.

You seem to be saying the former. But if so where did it magically come
from?

"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Basil Jet wrote:
;-(

I guess it's worth much more as land for building.

Only if someone else pays for all the infrastructure improvements to get
people to where there are jobs.

Thanet is a sea of low priced housing and next to zero jobs (and high
deprivation). You aren't going to find many buyers for "estate" houses
at much above "build" costs unless they can find work in the area or have
good access to London.

neither of which are the case here.

People who think that they can build 10,000 houses in this location and
sell them for 150-200K each to unwaged/unemployed/retired, are living
in cloud cuckoo land.

Ann Gloag (of Stagecoach fame) must think she can make a profit on the
deal:

It only cost her a pound, so that wouldn't be difficult.

It's worth reading the full original story. Not just the short extract I
quoted. Here's another extract that talks about a £23m she may also have
taken on as part of the deal:

do you mean she received 23 million.

or became liable for 23 million.

You seem to be saying the former. But if so where did it magically come from?

She appears to have picked up the responsibility for a £23m debt, as the
company was loaded with this debt before the sale. So the £1 she paid
wasn't the actual cost. Read the linked story for more details.

As many London Local Authorities have noticed that "exporting" their council
tenants is cheaper than housing them in London, it might possible to sell the
whole 10,000 to London Boroughs.

Robin9 wrote:
tim.....;143531 Wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
Basil Jet wrote:-
;-(-

I guess it's worth much more as land for building.-

Only if someone else pays for all the infrastructure improvements to get

people to where there are jobs.

Thanet is a sea of low priced housing and next to zero jobs (and high
deprivation). You aren't going to find many buyers for "estate" houses
at
much above "build" costs unless they can find work in the area or have
good
access to London.

neither of which are the case here.

People who think that they can build 10,000 houses in this location and
sell
them for 150-200K each to unwaged/unemployed/retired, are living in
cloud
cuckoo land.

tim

As many London Local Authorities have noticed that "exporting" their
council
tenants is cheaper than housing them in London, it might possible to
sell the
whole 10,000 to London Boroughs.

In any case, it's 1,000, not 10,000 homes.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin9 wrote:
tim.....;143531 Wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
Basil Jet wrote:-
;-(-

I guess it's worth much more as land for building.-

Only if someone else pays for all the infrastructure improvements to get

people to where there are jobs.

Thanet is a sea of low priced housing and next to zero jobs (and high
deprivation). You aren't going to find many buyers for "estate" houses
at
much above "build" costs unless they can find work in the area or have
good
access to London.

neither of which are the case here.

People who think that they can build 10,000 houses in this location and
sell
them for 150-200K each to unwaged/unemployed/retired, are living in
cloud
cuckoo land.

tim

As many London Local Authorities have noticed that "exporting" their
council
tenants is cheaper than housing them in London, it might possible to
sell the
whole 10,000 to London Boroughs.

In any case, it's 1,000, not 10,000 homes.

The 1000 is the planning request already put in for houses that could be
built with the airport remaining open.

10,000 is an estimate for the whole site (and therefore a reflection of the
potential value of the land) if it remains closed (which it probably will)

tim

On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 04:15:59PM +0100, tim..... wrote:

It is served by a bus service of only 10 buses a day.

So change the bus service.

Perhaps if it is made worthwhile to run more buses - by, for example,
providing loads of customers who live there - you'll get a better
service.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

All praise the Sun God
For He is a Fun God
Ra Ra Ra!

On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 10:55:28 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin9 wrote:
tim.....;143531 Wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
Basil Jet wrote:-
;-(-

I guess it's worth much more as land for building.-

Only if someone else pays for all the infrastructure improvements to get

people to where there are jobs.

Thanet is a sea of low priced housing and next to zero jobs (and high
deprivation). You aren't going to find many buyers for "estate" houses
at
much above "build" costs unless they can find work in the area or have
good
access to London.

neither of which are the case here.

People who think that they can build 10,000 houses in this location and
sell
them for 150-200K each to unwaged/unemployed/retired, are living in
cloud
cuckoo land.

tim

As many London Local Authorities have noticed that "exporting" their
council
tenants is cheaper than housing them in London, it might possible to
sell the
whole 10,000 to London Boroughs.

In any case, it's 1,000, not 10,000 homes.

The 1000 is the planning request already put in for houses that could be
built with the airport remaining open.

10,000 is an estimate for the whole site (and therefore a reflection of the
potential value of the land) if it remains closed (which it probably will)

Presumably if they do apply for permission to build thousands of new
homes, the developers will also be required to fund infrastructure
improvements (planning gains), including roads, schools, public
transport, and all the rest.

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
k...
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 04:15:59PM +0100, tim..... wrote:

It is served by a bus service of only 10 buses a day.

So change the bus service.

Perhaps if it is made worthwhile to run more buses - by, for example,
providing loads of customers who live there - you'll get a better
service.

Oh agreed

but there's no guarantee that they bus company *will* run it commercially,
and a developer can't just assume that

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 10:55:28 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin9 wrote:
tim.....;143531 Wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
Basil Jet wrote:-
;-(-

I guess it's worth much more as land for building.-

Only if someone else pays for all the infrastructure improvements to
get

people to where there are jobs.

Thanet is a sea of low priced housing and next to zero jobs (and high
deprivation). You aren't going to find many buyers for "estate"
houses
at
much above "build" costs unless they can find work in the area or have
good
access to London.

neither of which are the case here.

People who think that they can build 10,000 houses in this location
and
sell
them for 150-200K each to unwaged/unemployed/retired, are living in
cloud
cuckoo land.

tim

As many London Local Authorities have noticed that "exporting" their
council
tenants is cheaper than housing them in London, it might possible to
sell the
whole 10,000 to London Boroughs.

In any case, it's 1,000, not 10,000 homes.

The 1000 is the planning request already put in for houses that could be
built with the airport remaining open.

10,000 is an estimate for the whole site (and therefore a reflection of
the
potential value of the land) if it remains closed (which it probably will)

Presumably if they do apply for permission to build thousands of new
homes, the developers will also be required to fund infrastructure
improvements (planning gains), including roads, schools, public
transport, and all the rest.

There are two issues he

1) A site needs to be "sustainable". For 10,000 house (in location like
this) that means that you need to included on the site schools, doctors
surgery, shops etc. But much of that is revenue generating anyway (the
doctor pays rent, Tesco will pay you for the land and build their own
supermarket). And it needs to be accessible, which here isn't a problem as,
if the whole site is redeveloped, it will easily link into the new access
road that has just been built.

2) You need to pay for the planning gain by giving the LA money to improve
other services, such as, as you suggest public transport. But you will note
that the Tories have decided that, in the current market, developers who
have paid "full price" for their land can no longer make any profit if they
have to make these payments so they have, temporarily, scrapped them. It
could be that this site will receive PP on the basis that 20 million pounds
of planning gain that ought to be paid (mostly for the new railway station
that the viability of the site seems to rely upon) won't be charged and the
rest of us will have to pick up the bill so that Goag can keep her 50
million profit on the sale of the land!

The developer will also have to show that there are jobs for all of these
10,000 new residents. Without the railway station, that will be impossible

tim

"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 10:55:28 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin9 wrote:
tim.....;143531 Wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
Basil Jet wrote:-
;-(-

I guess it's worth much more as land for building.-

Only if someone else pays for all the infrastructure improvements to get

people to where there are jobs.

Thanet is a sea of low priced housing and next to zero jobs (and high
deprivation). You aren't going to find many buyers for "estate" houses
at
much above "build" costs unless they can find work in the area or have
good
access to London.

neither of which are the case here.

People who think that they can build 10,000 houses in this location and
sell
them for 150-200K each to unwaged/unemployed/retired, are living in
cloud
cuckoo land.

tim

As many London Local Authorities have noticed that "exporting" their
council
tenants is cheaper than housing them in London, it might possible to
sell the
whole 10,000 to London Boroughs.

In any case, it's 1,000, not 10,000 homes.

The 1000 is the planning request already put in for houses that could be
built with the airport remaining open.

10,000 is an estimate for the whole site (and therefore a reflection of the
potential value of the land) if it remains closed (which it probably will)

Presumably if they do apply for permission to build thousands of new
homes, the developers will also be required to fund infrastructure
improvements (planning gains), including roads, schools, public
transport, and all the rest.

There are two issues he

1) A site needs to be "sustainable". For 10,000 house (in location like
this) that means that you need to included on the site schools, doctors
surgery, shops etc. But much of that is revenue generating anyway (the
doctor pays rent, Tesco will pay you for the land and build their own
supermarket). And it needs to be accessible, which here isn't a problem
as, if the whole site is redeveloped, it will easily link into the new
access road that has just been built.

2) You need to pay for the planning gain by giving the LA money to
improve other services, such as, as you suggest public transport. But
you will note that the Tories have decided that, in the current market,
developers who have paid "full price" for their land can no longer make
any profit if they have to make these payments so they have, temporarily,
scrapped them. It could be that this site will receive PP on the basis
that 20 million pounds of planning gain that ought to be paid (mostly for
the new railway station that the viability of the site seems to rely
upon) won't be charged and the rest of us will have to pick up the bill
so that Goag can keep her 50 million profit on the sale of the land!

The developer will also have to show that there are jobs for all of these
10,000 new residents. Without the railway station, that will be impossible

So make planning approval conditional on funding the new railway station
and other essential amenities. It's what's happened with the Nine Elms and
Battersea power station redevelopments, which had to fund the Northern Line
extension with two stations, as well as the Canary Wharf and Woolwich
Crossrail stations. The JLE was also partly funded by Canary Wharf. I'm
sure there are many other examples, as this is a well established
procedure.