howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
15 August 2009
18:0027295mrs t is firmly in the past now keith, a bit like diptheria.
i have often wondered why the building of social housing has never been restarted, it is very good for the economy overall.
it means that labour can move more freely to where jobs were.
nowadays the housing stock left is just the properties that people do not consider worth buying, in the main.
15 August 2009
18:0327296Diptheria has been consigned to history as the result of a concerted effort to kill it. I leave that there.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
15 August 2009
22:4227304Just live in hope the right gets it way and destroys D C
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
16 August 2009
07:1427315There is a resurgence of "social" housing now; it may not be called Council Housing, but to all intents and purposes, it is.
There is a greater percentage of "affordable" and "social" housing in every development, but this also means that the developers will lose a certain amount of their profit on these kinds of housing, but so long as it is not too great a proportion of the whole development, it will work.
The developers have to pay more and more for this and that, plus section 106 money; money for libraries, highways, education, children's facilities etc. etc. it's certainly not as profitable as it used to be.
The Government are raising the levels all the time - on numbers and percentages of social housing, as well as density, but not contributing money to it, just expecting/forcing the developer to take the load.
Profit is not a dirty word - greed may be, but that's down to the individual.
Roger
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
16 August 2009
07:2327317We need to incorporate social housing within private estates ie a builder only gets planning permission for a new build if at least 10% are leased to housing authorities.For far too long council estates have attracted stigma and poor services.Instead of ghetto-ing council tenants we should incorporate and disperse them amongst private estates and hopefully changing the whole culture of being a council house tenant on say Buckland for example..
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
16 August 2009
07:4327322That is exactly what is happening Marek - part of the development, not a separate one and the percentage is around 30% not 10%.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
16 August 2009
07:5127324Lets be clear on this 106 agreement as its not ringing true
lets take Priory for instance As everyone knows, still priory waits for the big secret to be revealed on what may be a new site for the play area for priory.
When Westmount was looked at as a building developement 106 agreement was looked at, the developer was clear he would put in a play area(small) but only to be used by the people within that developement, so much for community sharing!!
then it was said they would if they built provide £45,000 towards a play area this in last year or so has reduced to £10,000
on top of this £100,000 was allocated for the play area, by the District council but this administration has spent it in other parts of the District, and still no play area.
The 106 agreement needs tightening up.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
16 August 2009
09:4527339As far as I am aware Keith your posting is incorrect; it was just a "lap" area for very small children. The 106 money now on the table is considerably more that your £45,000 and certainly nowhere near £10,000.
I agree there was a £100,000 put aside for a play area, but because we couldn't come up with one that is acceptable to all, it was moved and spent elsewhere in the District. It doesn't matter where really, but it has gone.
I do agree that Section 106 money needs to be tightened up, in many cases it wasn't even claimed for.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 August 2009
19:0627365i am a bit confued over this section 106 money, who actually does the claiming?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
16 August 2009
19:2727372DDC Planning officers Howard.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 August 2009
19:3227375thanks for that roger.
who then decides how the money is spent once received?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
16 August 2009
19:4027380It will usually be spent in the ward where the development takes place Howard; if there is deemed to be no need in that ward, it can be used in neighbouring wards.
I understand that the Ward Councillors are consulted about it, but to date, I've never been asked what I think.
I can't give an officers name as to who exactly is responsible for it, although there is now a 106 committee made up of senior officers and senior Councillors.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
17 August 2009
21:0827461ROGER
There is nowt incorrect in my posting, but im willing to move on in the interests of PRIORY area getting its play area.
I thankyou ROGER for being honest enough to admit the 100,000 was spent OUTSIDE of priory but was to be spent on the PRIORY PLAY AREA!
It is a shame some of party friends could have had the same honesty as you.
If we do now have cllrs.officers looking at 106 dosh i hope Priory will benefit, we have seen a lot of developement go in around the ward in a very small area, and change the face of the ward.
Maybe for some thats no bad thing, and large profits made, but through this the local population has had to survive.
I do hope that once the SECRET SOCIETY has met on this SECRET site for the priory play area that it will announced and take the public with them
PRIOIRY DESERVES BETTER
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
18 August 2009
06:4227480As you know Keith, there is no secret society, but there are cabinet members and senior officers looking at sites and their viability as play areas.
Ownership (if not owned by DDC) is an issue, as if a plot of land is thought to be suitable, the ownership of it has to be deternined and then find out if they are willing to sell it as a play area; I don't even think that CPOs can play a part in this.
An area of land within a residential area would be good as a play area, but also great (for the owner) as a residential plot and fetch so much more money too of course.
Another issue is size and location - are they both appropriate.
Local views - has there been a recent consultation on where exactly would the local residents want a play-area (and how comprehensive was it) - there is afterall a very small number of areas that could be used as a play-area and only so much money (perhaps to buy the land if in private ownership, then sort the land out and equip it, or put another way, would they like so and so site to be a play area ?
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
18 August 2009
07:0827486ROGER
As far as i'm aware no such consultation has taken place, thats exactly my point, its no good officers/cllrs going for a site that local people oppose, so why not involve them ?
Didn't think it was that difficult?
Is it realy that difficult to tell people
Anyway I think people have waited that long most have given up, sadly
I hope that at some point these great SECRET sites will become known and we can involve local people
Or is that to much to ask?
Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
18 August 2009
08:3727491Gentlemen,why Is this never made clear to the public.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
18 August 2009
09:3227494surely the owners of the parcels of land are entitled to privacy in their negotiations with the council?
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
18 August 2009
14:0127497HOWARD
I do understand where your coming from, what i'm saying is if the council comes forward with a site that locals oppose(or have better sites) isn't this, or could this be another wasted exercise?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
18 August 2009
16:5227518i would be surprised if the locals were against any site, as long as it is in, or very close to the ward.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
18 August 2009
16:5427520sorry howard trying not to disagree but im afraid locals have in the past opposed certain sites, just trying to make sure Priory gets a good deal