Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing
Posted by: Theo Dennison
Date/Time: 01/11/17 00:43:00

The 'affordable' element is dealt with through the planning process.  The Council has asked for an option to buy any or all of the units on the Police Station site as one of its terms for putting its freehold interest into the development and topping its equity share up to 50% with a cash equivalent.  That would make the Council effectively a silent partner in the scheme and we would then use the Council's share of return (and our original stake) to purchase the units.  I think I was rather clearer on this at the public meeting last January but hopefully you get the point.  Because values and returns are unknown at this point, it isn't possible to specify how many units it would involve or the proportion.  It's not written into the planning application, though it ought to be mentioned - it is one of the reasons why this development is different from others where the Council's only involvement is as a planning authority.


Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 12:16:00 Martin Case
   Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 14:46:00 Barry Jacques
      Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 16:32:00 Martin Case
         Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 17:06:00 Barry Jacques
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 22:49:00 Philippa Bond
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 22:53:00 Barry Jacques
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 23:02:00 Theo Dennison
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 11:25:00 Martin Case
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing01/11/17 00:43:00 Theo Dennison
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing01/11/17 18:40:00 Barry Jacques
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing04/11/17 16:59:00 Theo Dennison
   Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 17:43:00 Martin Case
      Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 18:43:00 Adam Beamish
         Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 19:47:00 Martin Case
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 20:10:00 Raki Smith
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 22:19:00 Keith Iddon
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing30/10/17 22:48:00 Adam Beamish
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 07:54:00 Martin Case
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 08:12:00 Lorne Gifford
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 12:16:00 Keith Iddon
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing04/11/17 23:08:00 Theo Dennison
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing05/11/17 13:17:00 Raymond Havelock
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 16:15:00 Mark Skuse
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 18:44:00 Keith Iddon
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 18:52:00 Martin Case
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing31/10/17 19:04:00 Keith Iddon
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing04/11/17 23:12:00 Susan Kelly
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing05/11/17 09:11:00 Emma Renton
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing05/11/17 12:28:00 Keith Iddon
                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing05/11/17 14:59:00 Jennifer Selig
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing03/12/17 13:41:00 Philippa Bond
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Watermans v Social Housing01/12/17 20:38:00 Martin Webb

Forum Home