-
GCC/Planners have the power to do this, as many authorities do. But they never will act on it.
Sanctuary like many other firms like them, hide behind 'but we are already making 'affordable housing, therefore let us do what we want, we're only making 35% margin on these affordable homes'.
Bigger issue with any large housing development I have, so so so much of the area of the development is given over to parking of cars at street level. Anywhere else in the civilized world would have enforced an underground/stacked/concealed parking structure, which then allows MORE buildings to be put on the site (and still achieve 'green feel') or just have even more green space. Having 15-20% by area of the site as housing and the rest as one jumbo car park just smacks of fail to me.
Argument for a different thread.
BrickMan-
GCC/Planners have the power to do this, as many authorities do. But they never will act on it.
I haven't followed this case closely but it feels here that the council knew this was likely to happen and decided not to take steps to prevent it (e.g. by listing the entire site).
Deals like this are a bit incestuous because you are trying to balance maximising sale proceeds for the NHS trust that used to own the site versus optimising the end product for homeowners versus some kind of reasonable developer margin. It appears to be practically impossible to regulate developer margins to a sensible level, so any reduction in the value of the end product or increase in development costs gets passed to site owners over time.
NickCJ
sanctuary are arseholes and the way they went about this is so underhand. they should make them reinstate the towers