Futures Forum: 'Planning gain' - the replacement for S106 cash from developers - the Community Infrastructure Levy - but is it still 'bribery' by a different name?
it does seem that developers are not only able to 'shift the gain off-site' by paying the local authority to have 'affordable housing' built elsewhere, but...
If a developer can show that a council’s affordable housing target makes a development uneconomic, the requirement can be reduced or waived.
Thousands of affordable homes axed | The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
A rather provocative piece of irony... possibly:
How to Avoid Providing Affordable Housing - a Guide for Developers
35 Percent
A reminder and note of caution:
Before we hold our noses in disgust at housebuilder profits, we should remember that nearly all new social housing is paid for by them. Section 106 agreements – the financial contributions made by developers to planning authorities – have been used to pay for social housing since 1989.
Affordable housing: 20% of something is better than 50% of nothing | Housing Network | Guardian Professional
And from Radio 4 this week:
The affordable housing that's unaffordable
John Waite investigates why some new housing developments have been given planning permission without any affordable housing.
Councils set a target for what percentage of new build homes in their area should be affordable to people on lower incomes and will only grant planning permission for a scheme on condition that the developers include a proportion of low-cost homes. But following a change in the law in April 2013, some of Britain's biggest house-builders have told councils that they are no longer able to meet their obligation because it unfairly cuts their profit margins.
Face the Facts hears the allegation that some councils have been presented with out-of-date calculations that make a housing development appear less profitable than it actually is
BBC Radio 4 - Face the Facts, The affordable housing that's unaffordable
Thanks to: The myth of affordable housing | Sidmouth Independent News
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment