Jump to content

Sadiq Khan acts to increase affordable housing and prioritise for Londoners


Recommended Posts

Interesting. It also shows though how law and planning rules are getting in the way of any meaningful attempts to do something. Also why does it have to be private developers who build on the land? Why can't it be housing associations or even councils the land is sold to?

Pity he couldn't have enforced a greater percentage of social/affordable housing in the new AFC Wimbledon stadium development.


http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/sport/14696865._All_systems_go___Sadiq_Khan_hands_back_AFC_Wimbledon_stadium_decision_to_Merton_Council/


9.6%. Great, that's really going to make a difference.

It doesn't have to be private developers. The article is simply assuming that even with the 50% affordable housing requirement, private developers (due to economies of scale and general efficiency) will be the highest bidders to join the joint-venture with TFL. That's not unreasonable to assume.


Anyhow, raising the affordable housing requirement (as was his pledge) was always going to reduce land values. It appears though that his focus will just be government land rather than imposing a new 50% requirement across all of London. Otherwise there would be no legal problem.


Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting. It also shows though how law and

> planning rules are getting in the way of any

> meaningful attempts to do something. Also why does

> it have to be private developers who build on the

> land? Why can't it be housing associations or even

> councils the land is sold to?

Londoners being given priority over overseas investors is the main thing.


If developers know that offplan will sell at whatever price they set (foreign investors, largely) then it will follow that they will aim for the high end market.


If they are restricted to sell at to Londoner's primarily, it should mean that prices will be lower, flats of smaller size/ lower spec.


It's a good thing.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The other consideration is that users of Lime bikes and similar, plus younger pedal cyclists, probably don't view themselves as 'cyclists' as such and so don't get kitted out or even consider that they need to. I also agree that earlier nights are another factor for the casual or hire bike user more used to cycling in the summer. I don't think I have ever seen a hire bike or scooter user wearing a helmet or reflective gear- presumably that is because the bike is just viewed as a transport tool for short term use and users do not want to be encumbered by any of the safety gear? Before anyone jumps on me for anecdotal evidence and speculation, this is just what I have seen round here, there may be hordes of similar users elsewhere that are kitted out.
    • Well apolitical if that is an OK word for you.  Sorry if my choice of words was incorrect.  But on my original point if it wasn't for the Telegraph dragging this up, and yes they do have an agenda, an no they are not apolitical/impartial whatever, we;d be none the wiser. But as it made no difference to Trump's election campaign that why would he have a case in the American courts? Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the programme
    • If she took a bus, has she tried contacting the bus company? Long shot, but you never know!
    • Not really the point, though? I doubt cyclists who dress like this in the dark are or have been car drivers? Surely if they were they would be more aware of visibility issues? They are a real danger to themselves and others.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...