Some much needed good news

Oreo

I wonder if it was Whitewavemark2’s own words, as she usually just uses quotes and not her own thoughts.
Awful stuff tho that needed deleting.Was it a quote by Angela Rayner I wonder?
Why not concentrate on what Labour want to achieve instead of throwing those kind of insults around?

No, it was a quote by O-Brien.

Similar ilk to Wootton, Fox etc.

Puerile posh boys just wanting to be noticed.

Nobody is trying to goad you at all Whitewavemark2 but rather it seemed the other way around.
You say rather goady stuff in your second post tho don’t you?
About sensitive souls and fits of vapours.
If this is your second thread you could ask for this to be deleted too and start a new one, listing good LP policies and intentions without any insults.Always goes down better with people I find.

If this is your second thread you could ask for this to be deleted too and start a new one, listing good LP policies and intentions without any insults

Oh, what a good idea!!

That could be really useful.

As someone who has negotiated many s106 Agreements on behalf of developers, I can tell you that local authorities don’t need help with them. They have their own legal departments and if they have a red line they don’t budge from it. If provision of a certain level of affordable housing (or any other planning requirement) makes a development unviable a developer will not buy the site. Site acquisition is almost always undertaken via an option agreement or a contract conditional on the obtaining of a planning permission which is satisfactory to the developer - and the contract will list various planning requirements, such as provision of more than x affordable units, which will render a consent unsatisfactory.

Starmer is working on the basis that the vast majority of the public don’t know how these things actually work and will believe his ‘toughening up’ and ‘assistance’ rhetoric. Empty promises which will impress those who know no better.

I never ever direct comments at individuals, unless it is something to praise or give support etc. never have, never will

But there are Tory voters on gransnet WW2 & you know that, so you are directing your comments at them.
Plenty of Tory voters read GN but never post, so you’re directing your comments at them too.
If you don’t get that maybe you shouldn’t be posting on social media.

Whitewavemark2

I used James O’Briens quote because I share his opinion at the frustration and incredibility at those, despite the utter evilness and poison that drips from Braverman etc. are still willing to vote for one if the most inhumane policies that this country has tried to put into law.

It was NOT directed at any particular individual - I have no clue how anyone voted.

The fact that anyone has taken it as a personal insult is either mistakenly or deliberately not understanding what I said.

I never ever direct comments at individuals, unless it is something to praise or give support etc. never have, never will.

So it is no good any one of you trying to goad me into reaction at a personal it won’t work.

My comment was directed at the amorphous voters who stand cheering as the poison from Braverman contaminates everything as she does or fails to do.

I have always voted Tory

I am now politically homeless.

By acknowledging that you share James O’Brian’s comments you are also endorsing them, which I find totally reprehensible.

Germanshepherdsmum

As someone who has negotiated many s106 Agreements on behalf of developers, I can tell you that local authorities don’t need help with them. They have their own legal departments and if they have a red line they don’t budge from it. If provision of a certain level of affordable housing (or any other planning requirement) makes a development unviable a developer will not buy the site. Site acquisition is almost always undertaken via an option agreement or a contract conditional on the obtaining of a planning permission which is satisfactory to the developer - and the contract will list various planning requirements, such as provision of more than x affordable units, which will render a consent unsatisfactory.

Starmer is working on the basis that the vast majority of the public don’t know how these things actually work and will believe his ‘toughening up’ and ‘assistance’ rhetoric. Empty promises which will impress those who know no better.

I was just about to post similar Germanshepherdsmum

We supply the building industry and see how these things work on a day to day basis.

The Labour Party haven’t a cat in hells chance of fulfilling their housing promise

On the plus side if they do, it will be a win win for our business.

The comments were directed at all Conservative voters. There are a lot of us on GN, but for obvious reasons many just keep their heads below the parapet,

I’ll watch the housebuilding plans with interest WWM2. This report by Savills makes an interesting read.

www.google.com/url?q=https://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/229130/350250-0%23:~:text%3D239%252C300%2520new%2520homes%2520were%2520built,consent%2520also%2520continues%2520to%2520fall.&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjQit770eOBAxVKV0EAHRFABY8QFnoECAoQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2_v0_H3kdsVfZap5x8NQ7C

Interesting Germanshephersmum that makes sense when I see new developments near me with so few new terraced houses and so many detached ones.
What Labour could do is to make sure that there are small developments of council only houses built.Small as we all know that large council estates became no go areas sometimes.Small, as in some in every village and town, and not to be sold off either.

Councils could be given money to build their own houses (they already have money to buy and rent out existing houses - my local authority is currently buying some for Afghan refugees and the homeless). And the right to buy should be repealed. A disastrous piece of legislation.

Germanshepherdsmum

Councils could be given money to build their own houses (they already have money to buy and rent out existing houses - my local authority is currently buying some for Afghan refugees and the homeless). And the right to buy should be repealed. A disastrous piece of legislation.

Our local council is building a small development of council houses & flats.

My local authority has done exactly that GSM bought the land engaged the developer with a flourish and lots of PR. The authority are now in £522m of debt due to this venture and other property acquisitions, they’ve just waived the S106 commitments for the first phase of building.

That’s excellent GG. It can and does happen. It’s probably a better way forward than relying on private developers to build. Some s106 Agreements require developers to give money to the local authority for provision of affordable housing off-site, rather than building them themselves. What Starmer is trying to impress the voters with relies on their being unaware of the reality - which is somewhat insulting.

Germanshepherdsmum

That’s excellent GG. It can and does happen. It’s probably a better way forward than relying on private developers to build. Some s106 Agreements require developers to give money to the local authority for provision of affordable housing off-site, rather than building them themselves. What Starmer is trying to impress the voters with relies on their being unaware of the reality - which is somewhat insulting.

It has only happened since the Independents have had overall control of the council, up till then there was just continuous infighting between Labour & Conservative councillors.

Germanshepherdsmum

That’s excellent GG. It can and does happen. It’s probably a better way forward than relying on private developers to build. Some s106 Agreements require developers to give money to the local authority for provision of affordable housing off-site, rather than building them themselves. What Starmer is trying to impress the voters with relies on their being unaware of the reality - which is somewhat insulting.

Yes, any monies received from developers should be ring fenced for new council homes.

I'm finding myself in some agreement with GSM (😱) and GG13.

The thing is, if Starmer were to commit to funding local authorities with enough to commission their own social housing programmes, including, perhaps, compulsory purchase of suitable sites to keep costs down, would there be a huge outcry about Labour profligracy?

It's absolutely clear that 'leaving it to the market' isn't anywhere near to satisfying the UK's housing needs.

On the plus side if they do, it will be a win win for our business.

I'm glad you've said that, GG13. A real life illustration of the potential power of the 'state' to boost private enterprise and thus the domestic economy.

Compulsory purchase is a very long winded process and wouldn’t keep costs down Maizie. If land is being purchased for development then usually the development value would be reflected in the price. However, land which is to be used for affordable housing but which would otherwise not be given permission for residential development (outside the village envelope or in the green belt for instance) can be deemed an ‘exception site’ and local authorities or housing associations can take advantage of that in order to buy land more cheaply.

I rarely (never) rase my head above the parapet GSM, but I make a rare exception to say that I agree with every word you said.

Thanks!

Germanshepherdsmum

As someone who has negotiated many s106 Agreements on behalf of developers, I can tell you that local authorities don’t need help with them. They have their own legal departments and if they have a red line they don’t budge from it. If provision of a certain level of affordable housing (or any other planning requirement) makes a development unviable a developer will not buy the site. Site acquisition is almost always undertaken via an option agreement or a contract conditional on the obtaining of a planning permission which is satisfactory to the developer - and the contract will list various planning requirements, such as provision of more than x affordable units, which will render a consent unsatisfactory.

Starmer is working on the basis that the vast majority of the public don’t know how these things actually work and will believe his ‘toughening up’ and ‘assistance’ rhetoric. Empty promises which will impress those who know no better.

I know that LAs have their own legal dept. And what you are saying makes sense.

I was talking to a Canadian friend yesterday, and it is clear that the Canadian government has much more draconian laws compared to the U.K. E.g. rent increase by private landlords, is held this year to 3% by the Canadian government, even though inflation is currently at 6+%.

It seems to me that if we want our housing crises to be resolved, much more stringent law has to come into force.

GrannyGravy13

I think it was the

blue tie tied tight round Tory voters necks stopping the blood reaching their dead brains

comment that some are found offensive…

Well it is offensive. Many on here are quite happy to be vicious about anyone who dares vote Tory.

Oreo

Interesting Germanshephersmum that makes sense when I see new developments near me with so few new terraced houses and so many detached ones.
What Labour could do is to make sure that there are small developments of council only houses built.Small as we all know that large council estates became no go areas sometimes.Small, as in some in every village and town, and not to be sold off either.

Developers don't want to do small developments of council houses - there's not enough money in it for them.

Re GermanShepherdsMum's comment about councils' legal departments - they may have those but they don't have the budget to pay many lawyers' fees. About 30 years ago a friend, who was a planning office had to deal with a man who had set up a gravel washing plant in a residential area. He also broke up cars. All this was illegal. As the dispute intensified, one of his colleagues, whilst in his car, was shot by a rifle capable of using deer pellets. Luckily the bullets went into the side of the seat and not into the person. In total 3 planning officers were involved. Two moved to other authorities and our friend remained. The council held a retirement party for the 3 of them which was featured in the local paper. The council promised that they would continue to prosecute the villain but they didn't. At that time their budget for lawyers fees was £250k for the whole year. Not enough for a county local authority.

Section 106 is due to be phased out and replaced by the Infrastructure Levy. There are concerns that this will reduce the number of affordable houses built.