-
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-
Sounds like the hospital trusts need to be their own developers, or council authorities need to become their own one stop shop for the whole start to end again.
Often happens, especially with old hospital sites, central scotland had loads to dispose of over last 30 years. A deal is made, plans struck, but the developer soon goes after the easy money of new builds on clear land, and whilst there at it a few of the problem buildings magically catch fire, or become so run down that the viability reduces and they can clear them, for more easy boxes (Cala at Jordanhill nurses college just done this with more existing buildings).
Its a wide spread problem, and the end user is the one that looses out the most. A place to live dictated by the returns guaranteed to the investors, not to quality of life of the users. BUT like most things, if the consumers stopped buying them, maybe things would change, but there is often someone who will buy, and so the supply will continue!
Back to cargo bikes. Tern GSD mk2 now need a tandem 2.4m rear inner gear cable, mk1 you used to be able to fit a normal 2.2/2.25m (Elvedes I tend to use supply in this length as standard). Honestly, WHY.
Also a 160+ link chain is required. Mk1 you could use 138 link normal e bike chain.
BrickMan
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.