Reply to: ‘Our 17 properties will lose £16,000 per year’

[bobspud]

That's because you aren't a NIMBY.

At least you didn't ask them where do they expect their carers to live in 10-30 years time.

The rooms attendees looked like the cast of tales from the crypt so I didn't have the guts to ask. It was bad enough that I had already been caught saying sod it build the houses it will double the average for the local IQ

[AtW]

The Tories at the time were complaining the amount of deregulation wasn't enough....

They were not in charge though ...

[PurpleGorilla]

What you do is tell the developers the development can go through if you do x.

Plus where I live that's one of the only few places where there is space to put in new homes - they have run out of pubs and office blocks to convert.

But it is all resolved over a couple of sherrys down at the lodge.

"No Frank, we don't need to worry about schools, shops, doctors, transport, parking, or affordable housing; Jim here is on the planning committee and it is going through without all that."

[SueEllen]

Yep we need expansion just not here...

I went to a local planning meeting in our village because the council had figured out we could get some more houses into the village (about 200 dotted around in total) They were incredibly set against the expansion. I suggested we should let it happen on the grounds of there are 150 kids in the local school and one day they will need a home of their own and the village is already a bit of a blot as most of the people at the meeting lived in new builds that had gone up in the 90's I think that I might have over stepped the mark

That's because you aren't a NIMBY.

At least you didn't ask them where do they expect their carers to live in 10-30 years time.

[bobspud]

Where they want the development they don't need to do very much.

There is a train station nearby and loads of buses. There are also empty shops for doctors surgeries. Developers don't have to pay for schools.

I suspect one of the councillors lives nearby and is worried about more traffic....

Yep we need expansion just not here...

I went to a local planning meeting in our village because the council had figured out we could get some more houses into the village (about 200 dotted around in total) They were incredibly set against the expansion. I suggested we should let it happen on the grounds of there are 150 kids in the local school and one day they will need a home of their own and the village is already a bit of a blot as most of the people at the meeting lived in new builds that had gone up in the 90's I think that I might have over stepped the mark

[SueEllen]

Yes but because they a cunning stunts they figured out that they can get a clause into the contract that basically doesn't enact the need to provide the facilities until the last phase is underway. They put in for 100 houses and leave a proportion for the last phase and then they never build the last phase... Interestingly the last phase always seems to be cheaper to leave unbuilt than providing the necessary facilities.

Where they want the development they don't need to do very much.

There is a train station nearby and loads of buses. There are also empty shops for doctors surgeries. Developers don't have to pay for schools.

I suspect one of the councillors lives nearby and is worried about more traffic....

[FatLazyContractor]

These people are so stupid they don't even realize how stupid they are. A bit like Suity. They expect sympathy. But get ridicule.

FTFY

[BrilloPad]

These people are so stupid they don't even realize how stupid they are. A bit like sassy. They expect sympathy. But get ridicule.

A bit like embarrassing bodies. You cannot go to your doctor with the wart on your arse. But are happy to get it out in front of 4 million strangers.

If the daily mail keeps being this funny I might have to start reading it...

[bobspud]

What you do is tell the developers the development can go through if you do x.

Plus where I live that's one of the only few places where there is space to put in new homes - they have run out of pubs and office blocks to convert.

Yes but because they a cunning stunts they figured out that they can get a clause into the contract that basically doesn't enact the need to provide the facilities until the last phase is underway. They put in for 100 houses and leave a proportion for the last phase and then they never build the last phase... Interestingly the last phase always seems to be cheaper to leave unbuilt than providing the necessary facilities.

[SueEllen]

Perhaps you have forgotten the big fanfare with Blair and the Cyclops standing in front of the press announcing the fact that they no longer controlled the banks because it was much better if they looked after themselves... That was the point at while the regulatory gloves came off...

The Tories at the time were complaining the amount of deregulation wasn't enough....

[SueEllen]

Ah but thats not about planning that because they know that they are on the hook to spend cash on creating the extra infrastructure that would be needed.

What you do is tell the developers the development can go through if you do x.

Plus where I live that's one of the only few places where there is space to put in new homes - they have run out of pubs and office blocks to convert.

[bobspud]

The fact that my local councillors even when they had people in the local area, who would have had to put up with the disruption, supporting the building of new properties turned it down shows that the problems within planning in this country run very deep.

Ah but thats not about planning that because they know that they are on the hook to spend cash on creating the extra infrastructure that would be needed.

[bobspud]

It started well before Nu Labour - you can blame Major's government for self-certify.

Perhaps you have forgotten the big fanfare with Blair and the Cyclops standing in front of the press announcing the fact that they no longer controlled the banks because it was much better if they looked after themselves... That was the point at while the regulatory gloves came off...

That's about £1000 per house. Does she mean that, instead of her tenants buying her 17 houses for free, she's actually contributing that amount each year over, what, a 25 year mortgage? So she's buying houses for £25,000 each? still sound like a good deal

Not if you don't have the cash to front the extra money.

[WTFH]

Is Walter Mitty Fan's post-op name "Shirleyann"?

[thunderlizard]

That's about £1000 per house. Does she mean that, instead of her tenants buying her 17 houses for free, she's actually contributing that amount each year over, what, a 25 year mortgage? So she's buying houses for £25,000 each? still sound like a good deal