LondonMix

They don't just come to England. Every country that makes it free at point of use deals with this. Spain has horrible issues with foreigners coming to use their health services as well and it became a huge political issue during austerity.

How is the ranking decided (what major factors hold the most weight)? I find it interesting that France is number 1. I have a lot of French colleagues and they think the NHS is terrible. All of them over the years (an this adds up to about a dozen people) have gone back to Paris to give birth. I always suspected this was just part of the French's general jingoism but perhaps there was some truth to it.

Hi Renata- its actually both! From page 8 the document starts discussing the secondary school strategy, place needs, anticipated expansions and timing of shortfalls for secondary schools in Southwark etc. The first half of the document is devoted to the primary school place strategy Renata Hamvas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Londonmix, this is actually Southwark's primary > strategy! It's updated on a regular basis > Renata

Thanks rich

The govt regularly publish updates. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s55562/Report%20Primary%20and%20secondary%20school%20place%20planning%20strategy%20and%20Appendices%201-3.pdf

Hi RCH- would a change of use application be needed even though there is an existing permission for change of use of the offices to flats in the first (approved) planning application? That's the bit that's not entirely clear for me.

Singalto- where were the latest cats found if you don't mind me asking. That's terrible.

Why can't you make a full time living out of it. I think you can but you don't have to if you don't want to. I think the lower rates actually have increased the volume of business so overall the drivers do okay. I personally take twice the number of ubers than I ever took of cabs easily and I know others are the same.

Are any of the local surgeries taking on new patients. I have to say the appointment and service issues at FH are far beyond acceptable. I've had two really bad experiences (similar to those described above) but have been afraid to leave as I'm not sure where is better. My husband is at the Gardens and gets appointments there much more readily and with better customer service. Does anyone else have surgeries they have left for that they can recommend.

Regarding what councilor Charlie said: "The senior officer at the meeting recognised this might happen and stated the developer would still be liable even at a later stage.We will have to wait and see. " What is the likely mechanism for this and how can we keep both the developer and the council accountable for adhering to their own statements and policies on such matters, rch?

Uber drivers just like black cab drivers get to decide when and how much they want to work. Its not at all the same as zero hour contracts. Most of the uber drivers I used in the US (specifically LA) were doing it to supplement income. They were writers etc that liked the flexibility of being able to work in the gaps they had when they could. rodneybewes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > all prices and benefits down to the lowest > > common > > > denominator and we'll end up with thousands > of > > > people with no holiday or benefits chasing > the > > > same number of people. > > > > What holidays and benefits do black cab/minicab > > drivers get? > > > > I get the tax thing - but I think the Uber > model > > is great. > Black cabs get none, only a scant few cab firms > do. > > The ease of uber is great. The economic model > leaves nothing but Uber as it sets all drivers up > against each other in a race to the bottom and the > whole thing is predicated on not paying the same > tax rates as other taxi models. It's interesting > that the disgust of a few years ago about zero > hours contracts has dwindled away to pretty much > nothing. Give me convenience or give me death.

Whether it is important to you or not, the sole reason this second application was made was to circumvent affordable housing requirements. Having an informed public debate on the merits of ensuring the developer does not get away with this manipulation of the system is entirely relevant, not just for this application but for all applications. This is too often overlooked and dismissed. With more political outrage their might actually be some public pressure that re-balances the system to close the loopholes. XIX Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fazer, Londonmix, > > enough! you've had your fill. this thread is meant > to be about M&S. Please start an alternate thread > on affordable housing if you wish. There are still > people who want to engage on M&S and each time > they post a question it gets lost amidst your > increasingly lengthy debate. > > Thanks

No Frazer, affordable homes do not cost more to build than they are worth-- there is not a negative cost to building them, they simply don't sell for as much as market rate homes, which is what reduces the land value like for like to be clear. There is no chance of zero profit in London for that scenario. Developers build the maximum they are permitted to build including affordable housing. I'm not optimistic. When there are no loopholes, developers do not sit on land, they buy it aware of the rules and proceed accordingly. Affordable housing gets built (or contributions towards it paid to the state) without incident all of the world. Other major cities with similar housing problems like NY have clear cut rules that allow this to happen efficiently. You are simply wrong on this. Some things are a matter of opinion and others are not. Empirically what you are saying is incorrect. I doubt you can admit that but that is a different issue. You can suggest planning should allow for denser developments and that would potentially lead to more homes being built but that has nothing to do with allowing for section 106 to persist. More market housing would limit price increases and if done to a great enough degree would even lower prices but section 106 doesn't prevent housing being built so your argument against it is nonsensical which is why you constantly go off on tangents about other issues.

Its good but not ant better than tapas on North Cross rd. Its a different menu though so nice for some tapas variety.

Love ?ber!

If the rules state on a plot of land 100 houses can be built of which 30 must be affordable, then that is exactly what will happen if the rules are applied without exception. It has no impact on how many homes are built as the land will be priced accordingly. The reason this process can be slow is because developers (not planners) are intent to make multiple applications to abuse the rules as there are loopholes through which they can circumvent certain conditions to increase their profit. All of the complexity and delay is generated by the developers trying to circumvent the rules (including by deceit). Removing the loopholes is the only means by which you can prevent developers trying to circumvent the rules, delaying their own developments by making multiple applications and asking for variations. There is nothing about having planning requirements like section 106 that reduces the amount of housing and the slowness is the fault of the developers trying to break the rules. Your suggestion would be akin to abolishing taxes because some people invest a lot of time and effort in their attempts to evade paying taxes.

The way all requirements (including section 106) impact land prices is like this: House prices are determined by supply and demand (not by how much they cost to construct). In a competitive market, developers will value land by looking at their total costs and calculate their minimum acceptable profit. What's left over is the land value. Land doesn't have an intrinsic value but rather a residual value based on what it can be used for. For instance, an acre of land that gains residential planning permission's value goes up exponentially in the green belt. Its the same land but with a more valuable use. This change in value is well documented. An acre of land that is granted permission for double the FAR (density) of commercial development than a equal sized plot beside it will trade for double the price. If builder costs go up or down, all else being equal, land prices move correspondingly (with certain caveats like land can't be worth less than zero etc). There is plenty of academic research on this which if you still don't understand what I'm saying I will link for you. Its fairly basic though-- houses are expensive in London because lots of people want to live here. The high price of housing makes land prices much higher in London than the rest of the country as building costs throughout the country are largely the same. Land values are residual values. When house prices drop, land values also drop. Its a well established relationship.

Exactly First mate-- Robbin if you actually read the thread you'd know that people have concerns about the application that have nothing to do with M&S as a tenant but the residential development the freeholder (separate person) is doing in conjunction with the other works. Take some time before throwing around baseless criticisms please. The objections being made in no way prevent M&S from moving into the retail component as intended.

Frazer you aren't putting forward any arguments. Affordable housing requirements neither increases nor decreases the amount of homes built. When implemented without exception, the only impact section 106 has besides the creation of affordable housing is reducing land prices- period. Explain why you believe that isn't the case using an actual argument versus a declarative statement please? You'll note that land price varies significantly to reflect what can be done /must be done with it so this is an established fact not a theory. fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Show some analysis that affordable housing > > restricts development. > > > > Everything else you are saying is just noise. > The > > planning system needs to remove the loophole to > > avoid this circus but that is not the same > thing > > as affordable housing per se restricting > > development. > > Really do you honestly believe the "affordable" > housing requirement equals more homes ? > > Laughable ~!

James did you or anyone else raise the issue of this application clearly trying to circumvent the affordable housing requirement? I asked up thread but you seemed to have missed my query. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If people object to the licensing application it > would help stem this tide. > > I suspect they're seeking longer licensing hours > than the planning conditions currently allow and > will them go back to planning to have that > condition amended to increase hours to the > licensed hours. Otherwise why do it. Assuming such > a planning application is refused the > developer/M&S will appeal. These guys have deep > pockets to keep wearing us down.

Show some analysis that affordable housing restricts development. Everything else you are saying is just noise. The planning system needs to remove the loophole to avoid this circus but that is not the same thing as affordable housing per se restricting development.

Section 106 agreements can work that way. They are often just a payment towards affordable housing to a southward if that makes sense- not that I agree it does in this circumstance. This developer is simply circumventing their obligations through submitting two applications which is a blatant manipulation of the system . spanglysteve Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Affordable housing while noble, is flawed in its > current implementation. > > If a developer built 16 flats in Central London > which have a theoretical market value of ?800k > each he gets ?12.8m. Say 6 had to be affordable at > a cost of ?300k. The developer has then lost ?3m > (6*(800-300)). > > Why not instead allow the developer to sell all > the flats at market value but then require him to > reinvest ?2m in an affordable block in cheaper > areas. The developer could combine this ?2m with > other such amounts from their other developments > to then build a larger block of affordable flats > therefore getting better value for money and > greater economies of scale. The developer wins as > they get effectively ?1m more profit than they > would otherwise, and society wins by a greater > number of both prime and affordable homes being > built.

You are simply making assertions backed by no facts or analysis. Mrepeating an ubstantiated view over and over again doesn't make your point any more convincing fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The "affordable" "Loophole" is nothing of the > sort! > There are incredibly parts of our dysfunctional > planning system which do actually work > .. eventually after many hurdles and much much > much wasted time. > Council planners and councillors know applying > idiotic nonsense they will have fewer homes. > Result is they pick and chose when they do and > don't thankfully they have some discretion. > THE END!

What about affordable housing James?

I agree but that effectively makes the variations allowance a loophole as its a component of the law being exploited to avoid an obligation. Variations were intended to allow developments to move forward when the market falls to increase building. However, none of the checks are being implemented (for fear of being sued perhaps?).