| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 30/10/17 22:48:00 |
| Yep, I agree with Keith. But the Brentford FC scheme says it all. Over 900 new flays, no on-site affordable or off-site financial contribution, all 'justified' on the basis that the development was centred around a community asset, i.e. the new stadium and some token educational floorspace within the stadium. And then of course they came back with modifications for the scheme which reduced the capacity of the stadium by 2,500, and removed the educational floorspace altogether. So if there was any 'community' benefit to begin with (which lets face it there wasn't, as Joe Public couldn't turn up and kick a ball around the pitch and the educational floorspace was minimal) there certainly isn't going to be any such 'community' benefit now. I was acting for one of the objectors and I can't think of another modern football stadium which has come forward giving so little to the community. Yes as I often point out Community Infrastructure Levy is payable on the whole development, and that's a significant sum, but infrastructure already lags long behind demand and that imbalance will only ever be rectified if the powers that be stop focusing upon trying to meet that demand and instead focus upon trying to reduce that demand by controlling population growth etc. |