Plans for future of shipyard unveiled (From Daily Echo)

What profit are they expecting if they can afford to give ( bribe?) 3.1 million for flood defences?

hulla baloo wrote:
What profit are they expecting if they can afford to give ( bribe?) 3.1 million for flood defences?

Why a bribe? They are undertaking a resi development and 200k of "marine buildings" - the £3.1m will be section 106 agreement. I am pretty sure Quadrant are not a charity, so yes they will still be expecting to make a profit.

One wonders if they would have received the planning permissions if the sweetener of the money for flood defences was not forth coming.
If they only build the 150 houses, that equates to just over 20k extra on the price of each property.

hulla baloo wrote:
One wonders if they would have received the planning permissions if the sweetener of the money for flood defences was not forth coming.
If they only build the 150 houses, that equates to just over 20k extra on the price of each property.

They definitely wouldn't have received the permission because part of any application involves a contribution to local infrastructure by the applicant. If any party is guilty of underhand practices it is the Planning Authority who effectively hold the prospective developer to ransom with a No Payment, No Permission threat. Why do you you think builders have to include 'affordable housing' in any large development when they know that people buying expensive houses want to live on an exclusive development? Many things like bus stops, cycle paths, pavements and road repairs have been provided by a builder with the local council taking the praise for the improvements.

Torchie1 wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
One wonders if they would have received the planning permissions if the sweetener of the money for flood defences was not forth coming.
If they only build the 150 houses, that equates to just over 20k extra on the price of each property.

They definitely wouldn't have received the permission because part of any application involves a contribution to local infrastructure by the applicant. If any party is guilty of underhand practices it is the Planning Authority who effectively hold the prospective developer to ransom with a No Payment, No Permission threat. Why do you you think builders have to include 'affordable housing' in any large development when they know that people buying expensive houses want to live on an exclusive development? Many things like bus stops, cycle paths, pavements and road repairs have been provided by a builder with the local council taking the praise for the improvements.

Agreed, and paid for by the housebuyer and artificially inflating the prices, with the knock on effect of increased mortage borrowing etc.
I know that nobody is forced to buy them, but they will.

hulla baloo wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

hulla baloo wrote: One wonders if they would have received the planning permissions if the sweetener of the money for flood defences was not forth coming. If they only build the 150 houses, that equates to just over 20k extra on the price of each property.

They definitely wouldn't have received the permission because part of any application involves a contribution to local infrastructure by the applicant. If any party is guilty of underhand practices it is the Planning Authority who effectively hold the prospective developer to ransom with a No Payment, No Permission threat. Why do you you think builders have to include 'affordable housing' in any large development when they know that people buying expensive houses want to live on an exclusive development? Many things like bus stops, cycle paths, pavements and road repairs have been provided by a builder with the local council taking the praise for the improvements.

Agreed, and paid for by the housebuyer and artificially inflating the prices, with the knock on effect of increased mortage borrowing etc. I know that nobody is forced to buy them, but they will.

by that logic new houses on new developments will be substantially more expensive that existing stock due to the associated S106 costs.
Only issue with that this is obviously not the case and if anything there is more flexibility on the price of new build stock.
S106 agreements have been around since 1990 and work well. If a builder is going to construct 100 new houses and that is going to have an impact of the local infrastructure then they have to make a contribution towards that.

So to build 150 houses you as a developer have to pay approx £21k per house.....So does that mean that Fareham Borough Council will be receiving £155million for the 7500 houses being forced onto the SDA site on Junction 11 M27?

Farehamscareham wrote:
So to build 150 houses you as a developer have to pay approx £21k per house.....So does that mean that Fareham Borough Council will be receiving £155million for the 7500 houses being forced onto the SDA site on Junction 11 M27?

I think Torchie1 has already explained the process very well its all part of the game that developers play with councils, the developers want the permission and the council quite rightly hold out for what they can get and that can be anything from a few swings at a play area to roads or in this case flood defences and i think the system works very well.